Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised, if various projects adopt a no-AI-merge-requests policy, simply because it makes reviewing absolutely shit.
Human-written code is predictable. When there's a change in a file, you know that they didn't make that change for the fun of it. When a change is more complex than you would've expected, you can assume that they probably tried the simpler solution first. Just in general, you can assume that they thought about how to structure the code in a logical fashion, so that the structure helps you to understand the contents. And if in doubt, you can always still ask them.
With AI-generated code, none of these apply, which means you can't look at the code like a story being told, but rather you have to evaluate each line almost in isolation to decide whether it's good or bad. Which is much harder and incredibly tedious.
Also, while the article states it almost like an axiom, I'd like to emphasize once more how important it is to me that I'm able to teach you something when I review your code. It genuinely feels like "Why in the fresh hell am I looking at this code and explaining what's wrong, if the recipient has no idea what I'm saying and feeds it back into an AI at best?".
In the majority of cases, I don't review your code, because I want that feature to be merged, but rather because I have a deep love for humans and want to make you better.
If you're not up for that and would rather have me talk to a vapid chatbot, please just don't. You can create a fork and push whatever AI-generated changes you want to that, without me having to look at it.