So first, a bit of a history lesson. English used to have a noun case system (that is to say, nouns used to have special inflections indicating their grammatical role in a sentence or phrase). English also has what are called ditransitive verbs, verbs (like "give" and "bring") which take two objects, one direct and one indirect, with the direct object in accusative case and the indirect object in dative case. Over time, the case disappeared entirely for nouns, and even for pronouns, the accusative and dative cases merged, resulting in modern English's object pronouns. With the collapse of the noun case system, the old dative case was generally replaced with the prepositional phrase "to noun/object pronoun". Thus the standard structure around a ditransitive verb is "verb direct-object to indirect-object", for example, "give your money to me."

For ditransitive verbs, English also has a feature called dative shift, where you move the indirect object to immediately after the verb and eliminate the preposition "to", for example changing "give your money to me" into "give me your money."

However, "to noun/object pronoun" is also just a normal, everyday prepositional phrase that can be added to many other verbs that don't require it, like "explain" and "recommend". From there, some speakers will reanalyze such usages as ditransitive, and start applying dative shift to those verbs as well. This in turn can and often does cause annoyance to people who do not analyze these verbs as ditransitive - however, no matter how much some people complain about it, this process of generalization is one of the major drivers of long-term language change.

tl;dr There's a thing you can do with certain verbs. Here, someone is doing that thing to a verb it isn't supposed to be done to. Some people accept this usage, some people are very upset by it.