If you look through the answers here, I already see much useful advice.
I just wanted to add this: I really don't think writing good documentation actually can be really boring -- and, if that was your impression up to now, I'd guess you haven't invested much into learning about good documentation yet.
On that note: I've had my share of encounters with people who thought "documentation" consisted of writing docstrings or -comments that repeat the name of each function or method in "human readable form". Yes, that's very boring. It's also not helpful at all and thus a giant waste of time.
Good documentation, on the other hand, makes you want to read it (okay, make that very good documentation[1]). It gives you a good TL;DR overview if you only glance at it, but it will also explain all the intricacies and mental models of a system in an understandable way if you spend more time with it. And -- in the case of source code -- it helps you solve the problems you likely encounter.
This isn't easy at all: If you as a programmer encounter a problem, you'll likely only look up related methods (from your perspective) and expect the information to be there. But only documenting single functions/classes/methods will make the documentation as a whole nearly unreadable, because there is no obvious thread tying everything together. So, I'd say, writing documentation is at least a task that is on par with designing and coding systems from a creativity and difficulty perspective. In fact, that there's no "automated" component (i.e. a complaining compiler) makes it more difficult: You're writing only for people, not people and computers.
Keeping that in mind, I'd say that a) it's worth to get better at documenting things (like with everything else, practice makes perfect) and b) I'd wager you won't find it all that boring if you strive to do so.
[1]: There's another comment on The AWK Programming Language somewhere. I would agree that this is a prime example of very good documentation.