This mindset that the value of code is always positive is responsible for a lot of problems in industry.
Additional code is additional complexity, "cheap" code is cheap complexity. The decreasing cost of code is comparable to the decreasing costs of chainsaws, table saws, or high powered lasers. If you are a power user of these things then having them cheaply available is great. If you don't know what you're doing, then you may be exposing yourself to more risk than reward by having easier access to them. You could accidentally create an important piece of infrastructure for your business that gives the wrong answers, or requires expensive software engineers to come in and fix. You accidentally cost yourself more in time dealing with the complexity you created than the automation ever brought in benefit.
Well, this has happened to me with pieces of code directly in front of an AI. You go 800% faster or more and now you have to go and finish it. All the increase in speed is lost in debugging, fixing, fitting and other mundane tasks.
I believe the reason for this is that we still need judgement to do those tasks, AIs are not perfect at it and they spit a lot of extra code and complexity at times. Then now you need to reduce that complexity. But to reduce it, you need to understand the code in the first place. Now you cut here and there, you find a bug, but you are diving in code you do not understand fully yet.
So the human cognition has to go on par with what the AI is doing.
What ended up happening to me (not all the time, for example this for one-off scripts or small scripts is irrelevant, or to author a well-known algorithm that is short enough without bugs) is that I have a sense of speed that ends up not being really true once you have to complete the task as a whole.
On top of that, you tend to lose more context if you generate a lot of code with AI, as a human, and the judgement must be yours anyway. At least, until AIs get really brilliant at it.
They are good at other things. For example, I think they do decently well at reviewing code and finding potential improvements. Bc if they say bullsh*t, as any of us could say in a review, you just go ahead to the next comment and you can always find something valuable from there.
Same for "combinatoric thinking". But for tasks they need more "surgery" and precision, I do not think they are particularly good, but just that they make you feel like they are particularly good, but when you have to deal with the whole task, you notice this is not the case.