Prompting AI to make the changes is part of the work. The other part is reviewing those changes. If a small number of changes was produced, then diagnosing and prompting the AI was a larger part of the task, and reviewing smaller. If the number of changes is large, reviewing becomes the dominant part of the work. With refactoring-type changes, this is common.
I think that a contributor should review their AI’s output, before proposing it as a PR. Otherwise it mostly amounts to “I would like these sort of changes made, please check whether they are correct”. To take a quote from this article: “AI-generated code requires more careful review than human-written code. Every line is suspect.”