If the human filtering the results improves the 80% to 85%, then it's still better to use the 90% unfiltered machine. You assume the human will actually improve the accuracy at all, not reduce it, which means he's smarter than the machine in some aspect. If the AI is very good, he might more often degrade the accuracy by rejecting things he doesn't understand or that he has an incorrect bias/opinion about.

Remember that AlphaGo game where the commentator thought it must have made a mistake because it did a move that was obviously wrong but then it surprised everyone by winning because of that?