You probably know this but for discussion's sake: in many modern forges, your pull request can't be merged unless the comments have been resolved/closed. So you basically cannot ignore these "feedback" items; you have to engage the comment whether that means actioning it or refuting it.
I currently work with the worst pedant I've encountered in my career to date, and I can empathise with wanting to leave the industry.
I have one of these too, one of my PRs received a comment on the third round of review about correcting a minor typo in a comment that was made years ago by someone else.
It is still just a tool and does require the team to buy-in and utilize it, but we've found it helpful.
Regardless, I think that's just a function of your team and your dynamics that you've built up.
On the current team I'm on we for example don't require this (at least on GitHub its configurable), there is an understanding of nits, how to declare them and what that means, as well as an understanding of using request changes vs approve and so on. We've built this up by having discussions about what the purpose of reviews are (eg making sure your code is understandable by someone other than you), having a common understanding that perfect should never get in the way of good, etc.
We regularly have retrospectives where, if we were having issues with really bad pedantry, I would hope it could be brought up.
It's.. quite different where I am now. Change requests for untouched/irrelevant code, tone problems, etc. I'd be inclined to try and 'raise the tide' but I'm just trying to leave instead for many other reasons.
So the "actioning" part becomes their work.
Maybe a more accurate phrasing would be, "Can't wait to retire and do literally anything else with my time, including writing programs with which I answer to no one about coding style.", Hah.