This is literally what photographers do. Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".
Professional ones, this is completely incorrect. Maybe hobbyists? But even then, not many.
The same is true of using any tool. If you just click a premade and generic "process photo" button in an image editor for every photo you get then you're doing no creative work (unless that whole action is a meta statement itself or something). If you mess with the different options and settings to find the one which matches your creative vision then you've played a part in the creative process.
I dont know if i've ever seen a message miss the point more than this one.
This is nonsense, right? If I decided "hey wouldn't it be cool if there was a really interesting painting of a dude" that isn't an interesting creative expression
Certainly the extent of the input matters - "cool art of a dude" is a very generic concept, but at a certain point, just writing the idea down has to count as creative, because otherwise books are all uncreative.
A Photograph is, mechanically, 100% machine-created. But we still call photographers "creative" for their work on picking what to photograph, how to frame it, timing the shot, etc..
Honestly, I think it's wonderful that editors are finally getting some credit for the creativity they bring to the process. There's plenty of writing about how famous films like "Star Wars" often owe a lot to their editing, even though that traditionally doesn't get credited as "creative" work.