Not necessarily. Using evolutionary approach, AI can come up with innovations on par (and possibly even beyond) to what humans could do:
One implication seems to be that the human brain is itself not a computer.
Comparing us to computers is really ignoring most of the limitations of computers, and invites far to simplistic - and inaccurate - a comparison.
Is the human brain a machine? 71 hits for: http://blogsearch.google.com?q=%22brain+is+a+machine%22
8,400 hits for: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brain+is+a+machine%22
That implication was not intended. The search links were intended as food for thought.
I think that "human as machine" has some interesting implications, but I think that by the time we make machines as complex and sophisticated as ourselves, they won't be machines any longer. If I see a machine that's organic and that has a superpowerful mind, I won't think it's a machine anymore.
Making of wetware was not intended to be implied.
If I see a machine that's organic
One of these?: http://images.google.com/images?q=flower Was that a Yes or a No?
Because AI operates according to structures that have been designed by human hands. The human mind is incomprehensibly more complex than any AI. So you could make AI that does innovate, but its innovations would still be far more predictable and routine than any that a human mind could come up with.
AI's cannot read literature?
John Cage would read Finnegans Wake, draw lines up and down pages, and derive poems from words formed by what his line would hit. A computer would never think to do that on its own. There's a fine line between genius and insanity, it is said - and computers can't be insane.