I think we're using the word "wrongdoing" differently.

Theft is the intentional taking of someone else's property without permission. That is, by definition, a violation of their property rights. In that sense, it is a wrongdoing. Whether that wrongdoing is justified is a separate moral question.

A starving person stealing bread is still committing theft. I may conclude that it is morally justified because preserving a human life outweighs the owner's property rights. That doesn't magically transform the act into "not wrongdoing." It means one wrongdoing is excused by a greater moral obligation.

If we say a morally justified theft is no longer wrongdoing, then we've collapsed the distinction between describing an act and evaluating it. Every action we personally approve of would cease to be wrongdoing by definition, which makes the term lose much of its usefulness.

So I agree that context matters. I agree that there are degrees of moral culpability. But justification doesn't change what the act is. It changes how we judge the person who committed it.