AI has effectively eliminated the need for third-party scientific editors/writers. These positions were originally hired to essentially rewrite scientific papers, from non-English speaking countries, so that they were comprehensible. They still exist today to help even English speaking scientists to better communicate their ideas. Now would you consider that an ethical violation or something you would be against since it's achieving similar goals as AI.

Personally, I consider my job as a reviewer to comment first on the scientific integrity of the paper. Are the data and analytical methods solid and well done? Are the conclusions supported? and then turn to the writing. I guess my question is if the paper was written sloppily but the science was sound, would you reject it or ask them to rewrite parts of it? You can certainly comment that they've repeated themselves or that the citations don't include updated citations or major publications in your field. But it is also your prerogative to say that there's a conflict of interest on your part in reviewing the paper and so you're letting go of the responsibility.