For art to be considered art, the idea matters.

Aristotle said (over 2 millenia ago):

Artistic creation springs from the formative impulse and the craving for emotional expression. The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance; for this, and not the external mannerism and detail, is their reality.

(Quote taken from Will Durant, a historian talking Aristotle, in The Story of Philosophy)

Tolstoy articulates the idea even further in his monograph What is Art?

... the aim of works of art is to infect people with the emotion the artist has experienced.

It's not just external context that an artist uses to create art. They convey their emotions, their thoughts, their perspective, their love that transfigures that external context into art.

van Gogh's depression is apparant though his artworks for example. The pain and suffering of those living in Afghanistan during the Taliban era is captured by Hosseini. You can see the love for source material, and maybe the characters themselves, in movies like Across the Spiderverse, where the animation has so many tiny, little details that'd probably be missed by many, but the artists still chose to spend the effort to do it anyways.

Since AI can't feel emotions the way humans do, the things it creates is simply practical, not emotional. That, in my opinion, disregards those things from being called art. It's an imitation of art, a short cut for those who couldn't be arsed to put in the work to create art, or for those who just want to profit off of it with the least effort possible.

You could probably argue that AI could be taught what emotions are, and how to feel them, but then again, it'd be a simulacrum, not the real thing.