This kind of objection seems to me to be in the same general category as saying that you can use a programming language to write incorrect code, which is not a meaningful objection to programming languages.
Another way to look at it might be that you assist the machine, rather than the machine assists you.
* Human engineers a prompt = preprocesses the messy reality.
* AI does the "creative core" of the task, comes up with a solution.
* Human post-processes the AI output back to reality, validating and actuating it.
Basically humans as a thin API layer. Who's helping who?
Right now, the prompt engineering is motivated by human desire for reproduction and survival (ultimately). But that's just incidental, the loop may be closed.
The AI isn’t yet coming close to doing the creative core of technical tasks - in fact that’s pretty much precisely what it can’t do, yet.
Instead, it’s acting as a powerful interface to a large knowledge store - a bit like a search engine on steroids, but one that can usefully tailor the answers to queries, rather than just copying what someone else once wrote on the subject.
Besides, as long as AIs aren’t conscious, there’s not really any question about who’s helping who. If that changes, then it’ll become much like any paid service exchange between humans, including e.g. ordering a hamburger. Both parties are supposed to benefit, although there’s often an imbalance.
In particular because of it not understanding the big picture it won't point out that you're asking the wrong question like an expert human would. (Does it ever?)
I don't think it will - its design doesn't really allow for that. It's generating responses to the prompts it's given based on its trained knowledge, but it doesn't have (enough of?) the kind of meta-reasoning required to step back, gain an understanding of the context of the question, and propose a different solution.