The people crusading against DoH favor a different centralized DNS standard, DoT. DoT is DoH with essentially one difference, which is that it runs on its own port, so that network operators can block it. There's a sprawling cottage industry of security and analytics products that rely on passive DNS analysis to function, and people who sell those products or operate networks that use them have a strong disincentive to block DoT and require users to speak standard, plaintext DNS to servers they can monitor.
Note however that once it's up and running, DoT is just as centralized as DoH is; it has to be, because it provides the exact same service model. Centralization and competition has nothing to do with their real concerns, or they'd be lobbying against DoT as well.
I can't say I'm especially fond of Firefox's decision to default to Cloud Flare for its DoH resolver, because I loathe Cloud Flare. Google Chrome does something more sensible: it won't change your DNS server at all, but will upgrade you to DoH if your nameservers support DoH. You should use nameservers that do, because DoH is valuable: if you're in the US, your ISP is almost certainly passively monitoring and recording your DNS queries, and you shouldn't let them. Personal feelings about Cloud Flare aside, you are better off with them than with your US ISP's DNS servers.
There's a strain of Unix sysadmin criticism against DoH that says it's wrong for browsers to co-opt DNS resolution at all, and that they should use the system's resolver. This is nonsense. First, almost no matter which browser you use, you should trust their DNS resolution code more than your operating system's; it will be more security-conscious and probably more performance-conscious code --- DNS resolution maintenance is the job you get on Microsoft or Apple's OS teams to punish you when you break the build. More importantly, as anyone who's ever had to mess around with libares will tell you, browsers have always needed better DNS resolution than libc offers, because they need fast async lookups.
There's another strain of criticism against DoH that Unix nerds won't see much of but which is probably even more important to be aware of: there have been hearings in Congress about how DoH threatens law enforcement by depriving them of intelligence for investigations. Ultimately, this is of a kind with the DoT vs. DoH argument: the people lobbying against DoH simply don't believe DNS lookups should be private. Another "tell" that you're reading one of these people is when they start talking about how DNS privacy doesn't provide complete or perfect privacy --- that you shouldn't care if your DNS lookups are being monitored, because you're leaking so much information elsewhere. This is bamboozlement. DoH privacy is extraordinarily low-effort, actually modernizes the DNS protocol in some ways, and addresses a threat millions of users are directly facing right now.
You should be wary of any outlet that promotes the meme that DoH is somehow shady.