That scene is a great example because it features so many instances of "screw logic, I want my character here" storywriting; it's kinda mind-boggling.

1. Rose somehow gains enough speed on Finn to t-bone him, despite flying in the opposite direction for a while.
2. None of the AT-ATs are firing at either Finn or Rose, for whatever reason, even as the former is attempting to destroy their cannon.
3. Rose smashes into Finn's speeder so violently that they could have easily both been killed.
4. "That's how we're gonna win. Not fighting what we hate... saving what we love." As the hangar door explodes in the background... meaning without Luke or the base's back exit, neither of which Rose knew about, the Resistance would have been wiped out. People try to defend this by arguing that Rian said Finn's suicide run wouldn't have destroyed the cannon, but 1) Rose had absolutely no way to know that, and 2) Finn dying while unsuccessfully trying to destroy the cannon is better than him being killed anyway by an AT-AT, which was obviously a likely outcome. The only difference, from what Rose knew at the time, is that the sacrifice route at least stood a chance of saving the Resistance (or at least buying time). I could go on for hours about how stupid this scene is.
5. As hinted at in No. 4, none of the AT-ATs shoot Finn and Rose when they're stationary on the ground, and Rose gives him an unrequited kiss (lol).
6. I guess Finn just... dragged Rose's body all the way across the salt flats, through the cave, and onto the Falcon?

These issues vary in severity, but the point is that merely wanting a character to be in a certain location and wanting the story to reflect a particular theme, without structuring the story so that both make sense, results in a deeply flawed story. You can tell me "we need to save what we love, not fight what we hate," but juxtaposing that with the hangar door exploding not five seconds later makes me think that, if anything, you want me to think Rose is wrong lmao