If we're talking about the general workforce, instead of specifically tech fields, that would make sense.
However, even more important would be to try to give everyone a fair chance, as opposed to trying to meet some metrics which can often lead to discrimination (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590346891...).
Since neurodiversity isn't one of the "popular" diversity/social justice topics, I suspect the main motivation here is to avoid missing applicants that are technically skilled and suitable, but may not do well in the interview process due to their neurodiversity.
Note can, not always does, which seems to be how it's treated.
In regards to avoiding discrimination, and giving everybody a fair chance, I don't see a system that accomplishes this besides a lottery. The job interview is fundamentally a ritual of discrimination. The entire fixation on increasing employment for a small number of "diverse" groups is mostly driven by the political strength of said groups rather than any sort of consistent moral principles.
If there is something actively preventing you from being in or sticking around in a profession you want to be a part of, I'm all for breaking down those barriers, but the idea of "over-representation" seems to go in the opposite direction. It seems aimed at keeping or kicking people out.
From the population that gets a CS degree? I may be biased but think neurodiverse people prefer staying at academia if they can and would like that balance to tip off a little.
Lots of discrimination in the past was justified with the argument that a minority group was over-represented in some field. E.g. some north american universities restricting jewish applicants all the way up until the 60s.