Rather the opposite: simplifying this down to an issue of just an AI introducing some BS, flattens out the problem that grifter journals don't follow a proper peer review process.

introducing bias or false information in highly specialized fields

Reviewers are not perfect, and may miss things

It's called a "peer review" process for a reason. If there are not enough peers in a highly specialized field to conduct a proper review, then the article should stay on arxiv or some other preprint server until enough peers can be found.

Journals that charge for "reviewing" BS, no matter if AI generated, or by a donkey with a brush tied to its tail, should be named and shamed.

We already have countless examples of this in science where a study with falsified data or poor methodology breeds a whole field of research which struggles to validate the original studies and eventually needs to be retracted.

...and no AI was needed. Goes to show how AI is the red herring here.