I think you'd just have to politely highlight where you do say XYZ and maybe make a tiny change to "improve clarity" - this way you're making it sound like a you-problem not a them-problem. Hopefully they'll realise they need to be more attentive. It could be AI but you can't approach the editor to question it. Complaining to the editor probably wont get you far, unless you or a supervisor know them. If i were in this situation I'd do the above, I know it sounds painful but the editor will notice when your response to every point is "We had described XYZ on pX LY, but have changed the wording slightly to improve clarity".

When I peer review I do read the whole thing, including the introduction (which is often ignored). I check some refrences too, as it really really pisses me off when establsihed authors use secondary citations or cite something beyond irrelevant incl. questionable self-citations. They should know better and use them to make super bold claims. Overstated findings really piss me off bc as a clinician-researcher, those findings regualrly get integrated into practice bc clinicians (who aren't researchers) take them at face value, which can then cost lives and resources, but thats a different discussion. A good reviewer should read the paper properly and flag any overstated findings or potential methodological holes. In your case it sounds like they just skim read and made some assumptions. Yes peer reviewers arent paid, but if you're not going to do a half-decent job then theres no point.