You kinda did, though. And then repeated it here. Then immediately contradicted it. You are unsuccessfully splitting hairs as if a sweeping absolute has nuance.
Indirect effort is still effort. CGI artists don't draw the frames that audiences see. "The destination" is rendered by a computer, from their work. It's obviously more direct than simply describing the scene - but there's a gradient, not a cutoff. If someone spends a week fighting any tool to get exactly what they want, then it's not a trivial push-button affair, and the result is a reflection of their desire and experience.
Even for generated art, you can feed in a blurry approximation, or have it modify a finished-looking image. You can photoshop the output and loop it back through. Hell, a generated video could animate a scene you painted on canvas. To insist that's not just lesser, but utterly disqualified, is not a defensible assertion.
Consider this Neural Viz video. It's mostly people talking to-camera. You might insist they could've done that with real actors... but that's the thing, this tech can do anything you might do with real actors. Would you suggest that no amount of telling actors what to say and do makes someone an artist? Why is this silly bullshit not art, when a version wiggling GI Joes in front of the camera would be?