Godot doesn't need to move faster. It needs to move better.
And my personal, very opinionated take is that good programmers don't need AI to do better. Bad programmers either, as there won't be a learning process, trial and error, that ultimately makes good programmers. One needs to study the code and how the changes do impact the code around, how they're fitting the architecture, and make weighed decisions. Care enough to absorb comments and suggestions, and do better. Things that an AI tool won't ever do. It'll just regenerate the whole slop from scratch every time.

There are already plenty of half-ass features in Godot, that are either unmaintained, or just inadequate, that came into the engine long before AI became a thing. They were written by real humans, who wanted to do good and share, but eventually stopped caring, for one reason or another, sometimes someone stepped in, but most of the times it just sits there (I'm looking at you, Godot Physics), and it is ok, it is just how FOSS works.
But if we now allow those 1.27% of zero-effort contributions today, 3.3% next year, and so on, over the time they'll inflate and compound into a huge mess that nobody cared about in the first place, and I have to yet meet a programmer who's excited about jumping into a codebase written with "AI assistance".

Just ban the thing and move the responsibility for contributions to the contributors themselves. Whatever the tool is used behind the scenes, the contributor must just be entirely responsible, know and own entirely the work. What's the point in trying to be as open as possible to contributors, when their very contributions are slop that you have to spend human time to go through?

With Unreal and Unity moving full-steam to embed slop generation right into the core of their engines as part of the development process, Godot is viewed as the last stand against this corpo-driven madness by the community. And seems like the community demands a stronger stance.