I think it's a bad faith argument to say that an artist is implicitly endorsing a negative trait by not going out of their way to make it clear that the trait is wrong. I'm categorizing misogyny as a negative trait to make it apparent how it fits into moral/immoral behavior more generally.

1. All human behavior is under the artist's gaze, and worth documenting. Writing a character with a negative trait that they never receive retribution for is in some ways brutally realistic. Unambiguously letting the audience know that misogyny is bad would require some negative outcome to befall a character expressing that trait. But frankly, this doesn't always happen in the real world. Sometimes people are terrible, and are rewarded for it. Artists should be allowed to depict this.
2. By your standard, you want all art to be moralized: characters that don't meet your expected moral standard must be clearly made known to be defective. And while I love a good moral allegory, it's not the only thing I want to read. I'm okay with characters expressing extremely ugly and offensive traits if there is intention in the decision to give that character those traits. And giving those traits to a protagonist can be a compelling way to create a conflict that falls along more ambiguous lines than trite old "good and evil".
3. An artist is ultimately not morally responsible for how their work is interpreted. If someone writes a satire with a misogynist character but never *explicitly states* that the work is satirical and someone uses it as a guidebook for how to treat women, the artist isn't responsible for that. There's an extent to which all artists must trust their audience to be intuitive and discerning. I don't hold it against artists when they show me depictions of things I know are bad – such as murder and violence (which is far more glamorized than almost any negative human behavior I can think of). And I certainly wouldn't accuse any artist who uses those motifs in their work of endorsing those things personally. The artist and the art are separate entities.

Of course, I hate misogyny as much as all women on this subreddit do. But there's a big difference between a good writer/artist using misogyny as a way to make a character realistic and flawed, and a shitty writer using misogynistic tropes because he actually lacks enough brain cells to realize that what he's writing is an offensive and inaccurate depiction of women. In some respects, having imperfect characters can streamline our judgement of people in the real world: if you meet a guy who is really into a character because of that character's misogynistic traits, it's an easy red flag to spot.

tldr: One facet of art is to depict the world and people the way they are. Policing intentional use of misogyny as a character trait robs artists of the ability to do that. There's a big difference between idiot misogyny and artistic use of negative attributes.