This is far better than just hitting return, but there's zero chance it's as good as doing things the hard way. Tradeoffs, of course.
(Before someone asks: "not using it right" could mean a lot of things, but intentionally constraining its search by telling it how to do everything is one example. Or by not giving it a way to hill-climb: no tests, no iteration on a solution, etc.)
These types of people will get the least out of AI as their ego prevents them from letting it outshine themselves.
AI is reasonable at reviewing code, with only a 50-60% false-positive rate, and its persistence at broadening scope often finds things human reviewers would miss. It's still actually still pretty shitty at writing code, though, again, with enough ground truth and persistence, it'll often generate something that's a functional turd. It will sometimes come up with better suggestions if you prompt for it, but it needs a ton of hand-holding at the moment. And usually the suggestions are still overly complicated messes that you can trim down to 1/10th the size, while keeping the core idea.
And of course, there are things like build systems (CMake, ninja, blaze) where I know the basics, but I've never been an expert and don't care to be. Before I'd offload build features to another team; now I'd offload it to an AI. It's not something I need to be an expert in. I just want builds to work well.
Sometimes in review I'll be surprised that my understanding was flawed and the AI subtly misled me during the discussion, but that's super rare and that's honestly still helping me learn and understand.
Frankly it's no different than if I were pair-coding with a teammate who happened to type 25,000 wpm, and who never takes a day off.
They are not going to do a good job.
Software engineers used to mock non-coding architects for good reason.