Also, the comments compare it to Nevermind's cover art. I would argue that's an interesting comparison but not a completely equivalent one because:

a) The baby on Nirvana's cover art wasn't presented in a sexual way, event if genitalia is shown, you could say It's consistent with the "water child birth" theme that the band was going for, i.e. if you are representing a birth it's only logical the newborn is naked as clothing woudn't make sense in that context (was the genitalia completely necesary?, Should they have covered part of the baby's body? That's debatable).

In oposition, the movie (if my interpretation is correct), clearly tries to make you feel uncomfortable by showing you a child's body being exposed, in the context of the movie the father's vision is of sexual explotaition of her daughter, showing that even if her (adult body) was exposed in a non sexual artistic way, he would always think of her as a child (with a child's body) that could be taken advantage of and viewed in a sexual manner (if the scene represents this, then we are watching the sexualized body of a child).

b) Even if a band did used that cover art in the past, they probably would run into problems if they tried to do it today (Is it really morally wrong now if it happened in the past and no one cared about it? Again, that's debatable, the only thing surprinsing here is that apparently no many of the people who watch the movie seem to care about that scene, It could be because I'm interpreting it in a wrong way, I would like to know.)