I can imagine a scenario of an attacker being able to intercept and substitute such e-mail with an identical one that just has the attached public key modified to include the backdoor "command=" modification. There may be numerous other scenarios such as substituting a public key in a shared public key storage/database.
Public keys are often treated as something totally harmless. It's assumed that the worst case scenario is that SSH connection will just fail if a public key was tampered with unless an attacker is also able to intercept and proxy actual SSH connection in real time (which is much more complex and much less feasible).
The attack described should be taken very seriously. Entities that have shared public key repositories may need to review their practices and include an automatic check for "command=" in the public keys uploaded. Of course, proper procedures on SSH server end (such as visually inspecting a key before installing it while confirming the fingerprint over a different medium) should already prevent this attack from succeeding, but they likely rely on additional human intervention which is not always done in real life.
The advantage of this method is that it works without supervision. If the attacker just replaced the key, they would have to attempt to login in the narrow window between installation and it being replaced because it does not work.
You remember the old meme, 1. A thing 2. ??? 3. Profit!
This is sort of like that: TFA skips over the part where the user is owned or conned by someone else.
The honest headline would be “yet another clever malicious thing you can do once you compromise someone else’s accounts!” but I can see where that would get fewer clicks.
An even better headline, that would get even fewer clicks, would be "post compromise persistence technique using SSH authorized keys".