Yes.

You're not entitled to know what specific tools were used to produce something, generally speaking.

In the absence of such an entitlement, not volunteering to disclose the tools used is not fraud.

Don't think calling a PR written by AI is the same thing as using a "tool". If code is largely generated by AI means that AI was an author and not you with some tool.

At what point does it cease to be AI generated and become my own work?

If LLM generates some code but I edit it, does it become my own work? How much editing must be done?

How large is "largely" ? Exactly how many bits of information must come from my fingers tapping the keyboard in order for me to qualify for authorship? Be precise.

If I write something but the LLM polishes it up a bit, is it still my work? Or is it AI generated?

Consider the rules around copyright. If your part of it is substantive, then it's your own work. If it isn't, then it isn't.

I'm not going to define substantive for you. That's something you should feel obligated to research and learn about yourself; anything less is dishonest.

Copyright provides for works made for hire. You are the author, yet your employer owns it. You're essentially ghostwriting your employer's software.

I don't have an answer about the stage when something should be considered authored by AI - we are in an uncharted territory on this.

There are some precedents and rulings related to copyright and AI, so we have at least some rubric by which "authorship" can be determined. But when it comes to AI doing polishing of existing code - that is less certain.