I think it really depends on the task.

There are folks who manage to have their whole careers be basically put stuff from documentation and stack overflow to implement very basic stuff over and over again, and pray it works and doesn't need debugging. They hate coding, but it was heralded as a doctor/lawyer level pay but way easier to get into. LLMs can largely replace the work for those. These are humans I would never have trusted with anything significant, and only have them low stakes low risk stuff to keep them busy because management wants them utilized. Sure they spend a month to fall at delivering something basic, but management is happy enough.

Then there are folks who mostly live in code that is needed because it truly doesn't already exist. Those folks will find LLM relatively less useful. Now those folks do end up with braindead chores on occasion. Change from library x to y because whole they both do the same thing, x got discontinued. LLM can be useful at accelerating that because it's just so obvious but not quite as simple as search and replace. Or if you want to define some argv parsing you can let a codegen do that because it's easy but tedious.

To go back to the days of car analogies. Imagine some tech people got the world excited because they created tools to automate engineering in motor sports. People even come out saying how it helped them engineer their own vehicle and stories saying the most prolific motor racing is being taken over. You as an F1 engineer see it as mostly useless, but everyone keeps talking about it's going to replace engineers. Turns out everyone is actually taking about go karts and it is true that it works ok for that and that go karts are way more common than F1.

The problem is that to the world, programming is programming without distinction, and even the people in charge of the F1 type work don't know the difference because they were never technical either.