How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you've made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective "team" to compete with people who have endless resources.

You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?

I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don't go around claiming "this thing isn't art" because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.