Makes sense to me. While there's practically an infinite amount of things that society would like to be done, it's not so easy to turn them into jobs. The exchange of money for labor is constrained from both sides - on the employee side, the job has to provide enough money for the worker to be able to live off it. On the employer side, most jobs only exist if the output of those jobs can be used to make even more money than it took to pay for it. This applies recursively.

In the end, the number of actual jobs available is very limited, and it's not so illogical to call the act of making such money/labor exchange possible as "job creation".

> I've always found the idiom "job creation" weird and illogical.

Probably because the origin of the term is very political in nature.