100% agree.

The frequency of primarily AI-guided PRs is getting out of hand, particularly the whole codebase oriented type: “this PR improves performance, fixes bugs, and refactors random chunks of code.” The cherry on top is the author never attempting to verify the claims of the PR.

A PR should be a focused, cohesive body of code that targets a predetermined, well articulated goal.

Personally, I do not review widely scoped PRs esp. the AI-driven ones. Wasted far too much time chasing down false positive claims and reviewing junk code.