Lowering the bar to entry in software can absolutely be a bad thing in a wide range of ways.
The most obvious in the current context is possibly well intentioned amateurs proposing LLM generated patches for the usual developers to fritter away their time on until patience runs out.
I suppose that _could_ happen, but I don't see it as very likely. Maintainers are absolutely free to decline low-quality patches or ignore with contributors who expect an unreasonable amount of hand-holding. This is completely independent of whether the code was generated by an LLM or human.
I have seen maintainers who, after a few rounds of code review on a PR that's not making any progress, close the PR and say, "I appreciate your efforts but this is taking up too much time. Please address the remaining issues independently and submit a new PR once you believe you have addressed them all."
The other possibility is that the LLM-generated patch is actually fine. If it looks okay and passes the automated tests, then I can't see why it shouldn't be merged. (Assuming Debian doesn't or hasn't enacted a blanket-ban on LLM-generated code.)
The most obvious in the current context is possibly well intentioned amateurs proposing LLM generated patches for the usual developers to fritter away their time on until patience runs out.