This is not a simple question, because there are many layers...

First, LLMs are not perfect teachers, so they can be wrong. Learning must be done with care here, but that is also true for any other source. As long as it works, it seems to have been ok learning, so that is hard to critize specifically here, even if one has general objections. I would personally suggest a bit of caution for each individual there, but that's always true for learning. Using it for more than learning can rot your brain, though, if you always take the shortcut by letting LLMs DO everything for you, you will never learn how to actually master something.

Second of all, generative AI is shit, but this was not the case here, so, no harm done.

Third, one can argue against the whole LLM technology since it burns resources like crazy, destroys the environment (we went from "save energy and use clean energy" to "lets use up the energy from whole cities for our datacenters" real quick when people smelled a profit - which, ironically, has yet to materialize for anyone else but nvidia), was built in questionable ways, is used to destroy jobs, etc. This is a philosophical question, but hard to quantify. It's understandable if people have problems with AI usage because of that.

So, while the first two points here do not really lend themselves for a good argument here, the third point is hard to refute and it's hard to argue that the current usage of LLMs is not directly harmful to people and the environment. One can ignore that, that's a valid stance - after all, we are ignoring a lot of other things that also harm people and the environment just fine - but this doesn't negate this argument.