There aren't many examples in the modern world of a piece of work as large and magnificent as the Sistine Chapel which was done by one guy. A movie or a AAA game requires hundreds of people, and arguably the results would be noticeably different if any one of a few dozen of them were replaced by someone else. Changing screenwriters could be as big a change as directors, so in that sense without the delegation of the producers, the thing couldn't or wouldn't have been made as it is.
But the more you micromanage the design decisions of a thing, the more you're the person without whom it couldn't be done, right? I've been on enough commercial sets to see directors juggling every decision and detail with the crew; the crew is their toolbox, or their brushes, the actors are their palette. I think if someone uses an AI like that, it's at least them without whom it couldn't be done. Perhaps "proof of effort" is just a not-nice way to express who had creative control. Once you delegate the design decisions themselves, you enter a category where you're not really essential.
Presumably, another pope could’ve commissioned the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling just as well as Julius II did, but we assume not many artists of the time could have done what Michelangelo did. So we laud and aggrandize those without whom we believe something could not have happened, especially when, like in his case, they did nearly all the work with their own hands.
Directing a movie is—except in very rare cases—the art of delegation in service of a core vision. And we believe only Stanley Kubrick could (or would) have maniacally orchestrated a space odyssey with effects that still hold up half a century later. Or what have you, I’m not a film buff by any means.