Sure intentions may indicate the liklihood of the person contributing more in the future, but that's a health metric for the project and unrelated from the contribution itself.
Because it's important to cultivate the right motivation among contributors. Allowing people with selfish motivations to thrive eventually destroys the project.
Notoriety is the currency of open source software. And that's a feature, not a bug.
I volunteered at an animal shelter that was unable to be a no-kill shelter. One of the first things they'd learned to ask at intake was "What's in it for you?"
People would invariably misunderstand. "I get to help these animals" or similar. "No, that's what you're doing here. What do you get out of it?"
And they'd still answer altruistically.
But what the charity wanted to hear was the "selfish" answer. Because it's perfectly okay to have a selfish answer as well as be doing a good thing. In fact, it's preferable, because it's often the selfish answer that will keep you coming back when things are tougher or uglier, versus walking away because "I can't do this, it's costing me too much".
Perhaps instead codebase contributions should be anonymized? Maybe then we can ensure people are contributing "for the right reasons"...
It's wrong if it's your top priority instead of improving the codebase. And even then not being wrong doesn't mean you are entitled to get it, your motivations are your own.