When you console.log() an object, it just stores a pointer to the object, and decorates it with an interactive label containing some text, so that it looks nice. This is fast to do, and most of the time, it's exactly what you want.
To log a static snapshot with equivalent interactive expansion capability, console.log() would have to do a general deep copy of your object - it would have to walk every pointer in the object and replace the pointee with its own recursive full deep copy, making sure to detect and handle cycles well, and keeping track of every replacement to ensure referential integrity (e.g. if two random objects A and B both have a pointer to the same object C, the copied A' and B' better both point at the same C'). An unlucky console.log() could easily copy half of your heap into the console, and god help you if you logged a DOM element.
(Also, all these copies would not be garbage-collected until you cleared the console.)
An universal deep copy is impractical to implement (notice how nobody seems to ever implement it, at all, in any programming language), and having console.log() do one would be an incredibly powerful and unpredictable footgun. Meanwhile, if you want to log a static snapshot of an object, all you need to do is to write console.log(cloneForLog(object)), where cloneForLog() is a function you wrote that does whatever copying is appropriate in your situation.
I think the only bad thing about console.log() is that this behavior is not taught to people as a core and important aspect of the function. I guess maybe if console.log() was restricted to strings, and something like console.logPresentation() was a separate function for printing objects, people would check the docs first and wouldn't be surprised.