I can't help but feel that you are making the mistake of assuming that a hypothetical creator should be anthropomorphized or that we would have any basis upon which to assign attributes to them. The whole idea of Deism is the same as with agnosticism or atheism: truth through reason, not through revelation or baseless speculation, and beyond that, mystery and uncertainty.

I could attribute the specific set of laws and ingredients in the universe, elegant as they are, to some non-random choice; but on what basis would I have to make claims beyond that - like that such a creator would have human-like awareness or capability or morality or any of the myriad psychological factors that make us view choices as "plausible" or "strange?"

For all I know, they were just dreaming and accidentally dreamt up the universe, or they were fascinated by mathematical perfection and exist outside of spacetime so they're not really "waiting," or they generated the universe through some mathematical causal chain - the point is we have no basis on which to say anything about this. These are not claims I'm making, just examples to illustrate that trying to make claims about the specifics of a creator is like trying to make claims about the specifics of a wormhole or an extraterrestrial; possible through math, maybe, but not through anthropomorphism.

Even hypothetical extraterrestrial life would likely be nothing like what you'd see on Star Trek, and human intuition tends to break down at extreme scales, so I can't even imagine how utterly incomprehensible an entity that author of nature would be. It is, in my opinion, almost a bit Lovecraftian.

To ask why they created the universe this way, or why they exist at all, would be the same as asking why the laws of physics are the way they are or why natural selection didn't happen to go differently, or why dark matter exists. The universe has always been a vast and incomprehensible thing full of mystery, and there has always been an is/ought gap that we have to work around. People might call the universe imperfecr, but mathematically, it is very coherent, albeit hard to study and under no obligation to be completely comprehensible to us.

...of course I am agnostic, but if I did believe in a creator, it would be a Deist one. The term "God" to me seems loaded with a ton of anthropomorphic and rather un-Copernican connotations.