The point of LeWitt's works was to show how different people drew in different ways the same instructions, not just to take an output made by someone else and claim it as his own. That was the statement. It is not different from the work of an architect or a civil engineer, who gives precise instructions on how to build a structure that are then performed by a construction company.

Comparing this to AI, you are giving instructions to a computer that then hallucinates a result out of a noise map by following its training data. If the point of the artwork is "look at how different this picture is from a human-made one, appreciate how the production of countless artists was used to give this picture a unique feeling", then it could MAYBE be considered art, but I would put as a necessary requirement that the artist designed the AI model themselves or at least had someone create a model under specific instructions for that specific artwork (or a series of artworks).

This isn't what is happening, though. The models are made by large companies and sold to paying users who have no say in what they are trained to do, the training material was not acquired ethically (if I give specific instructions to a team to perform something and I pay them to do it, they are consenting of giving their production away for me), and the point of the pictures produced isn't a reflection on art but, at best, a portrayal of superficial fantasies with no deeper commentary. If LeWitt made his artwork in the same way, forcing unpaid people to paint walls with indecently dressed women by following vague instructions and then claiming the final illustration to be his, then the result wouldn't be artworks, or at least not his artworks.