I don't think either term is strange or misleading really, they're not suggesting what exists because of course in a "no code" application some code is actually running under the hood. They're marketing speak to describe what you need to think about when using a tool.
Serverless = I don't need to think about 99% of what I'd usually need to when running software on a server. The idea is to say "you do basically everything the same, but less the server part of things."
No code = I don't need to know how to code to use this tool, so I can get more people in my organisation using it.
I think the one that falls down is really "no code" because usually with those tools you do need the skills of understanding control structures, sequences, loops, etc. A lot of people aren't used to thinking that way and so no code products end up with a lot of the same learning curve, it's just less scary because it has a graphical UI rather than misterious words in a text editor.
I'm still not sure I'd say "no code" is misleading, at least not intentionally. It's just we've still trying to figure out how to give highly customisable tools to people with no programming experience. We're probably not there yet but I imagine someone will crack it eventually or everyone else will slowly learn the skills needed. Email probably did both, people learned more and the tools because more usable (perhaps not the best example).
People have used the term "driverless car" to describe self driving cars in the past. It's just conveying the idea that one day you could own a car without having to think about doing the driving yourself.
At the end of the day, both are just marketing phrases for "this can do <thing>, but without having to think about <thing>". For some scenarios it works well to use "no X" or "X-less" to describe "you don't need to think about X while doing what you did before".