Yeah, I agree with the other commenters that "serverless" is a pretty silly way to describe something that involves lots and lots of servers.
If you told me you created a "serverless app" or your app had a "serverless architecture" I would think it either had no off-device communication, or only peer-to-peer communication.
That said, I totally understand the reasoning behind calling a backend composed of lots of 3rd-party services "serverless". You're not doing as much of the work of maintaining a traditional server-side app. And if you just have a few Lambda functions that hook into data stores you don't have to think about anything that resembles a server in a more traditional sense.
The "serverless" term is kind of brilliant from a marketing perspective. It's ambiguous, a little confusing, and really just wrong. People will love to point out how stupid it is. And that means they'll think about it, and remember it, and tell other people about it. And then they'll get used to it and it won't seem wrong or stupid - it'll just be the way you describe these kinds of systems.