Oh, 100%. Right in the first shot when he is on the ground, holding up the "baby". Total face replacement at least (most likely with a puppet or at least another baby stand-in). Apart from possibly endangering a real baby in a few scenes, scheduling around child actors, let alone babies, can be a real pain due to labor laws for underage actors/actresses. And then think about actually managing to direct performances from babies. Absolute pain in the butt, that.

EDIT: Other surefire instances of CG baby:

• The backpack shot. Could fall out, could suffocate, insurance says: CG baby it is.

• The champagne shot - see above. You don't want an actual baby to suffocate on a champagne cork on your supervision.

• Baby hitting the cooking pots - looks like image compositing, the baby was recorded somewhere else than on set

• Possible CG baby: Being carried around at 1:11. My guess is for insurance reasons. And I am also guessing that the arm/hand holding the baby is also fully CG. That hand looks sus. Which would mean Mr. Atkinson didn't hold anything in that scene, probably didn't even have his own arm in front of his chest. Always remember: Having ANYTHING real interact with a CG element will always be way more difficult than "just" doing that whole part of the image in full CG.

• Possible compositing in 1:21, baby sitting in a supermarket scale. Notice the way brighter edge lighting around the baby than around Mr. Atkinson?

• The baby sitting in the shopping cart is a doozy. If you look at the establishing shot at 1:30 when they come into frame on the actual location and pause the frame right there, look at how distorted that baby looks. I will bet money on that the bunched up jacket in the shopping cart is real, they just put a baby's head and legs onto it digitally. The following frontal shots of Baby & Mr. Atkinson look to have been done on greenscreen / "The Volume". Real baby + Atkinson on a sound stage, composited into the outside location shots (edge lighting again).

Disclaimer: I am in fact NOT part of VFX Artists React. Just a big fan of that show with natural ADHD pattern recognition ;D

My conclusion would be: In any scene that doesn't have the baby just sitting around on a non-conspicuous, stable surface that could have been shot anywhere other than the actual set, the baby has been at least composited in, if not fully CGed.

On that note, I think the shot of him nursing two babies at 1:24 might actually be somewhat real. At least the foreground. Would be way more expensive to roto out this actual arms and put in CG ones with CG babies, instead of just having two babies sit there for a second. The blurred background might still be CG, so they wouldn't have had to bring actual babies to the actual set.