As a very satisfied long time Git user who also ends up being its biggest advocate and trainer at any organization I end up at... no, it's not easy.
It's easy from the perspective of someone who already understands its conceptual model, which is wonderfully elegant. It's not at all easy for beginners.
The happy path is fine for the most part. There are several conceptual hurdles to developing basic competence with add, commit, push, and pull, but usually people are able to push past them and get to the point of using those commands even if their purpose and mechanism of action remain mysterious.
But things immediately go to hell if something deviates from the happy path. Have you ever seen a beginner try to wrap their head around a merge conflict? Have you ever seen someone try to puzzle through the man pages and Stackoverflow to figure out how to recover from a situation when they can't push, due to remote changes? It often ends in disaster, as they stumble through increasingly opaque and arcane commands, as they mess up the state of their local repository ever further with every copied and pasted snippet.
This is not a case of newbies trying to do advanced things they shouldn't be doing. These are "advanced beginner" tasks that arise naturally at some point in just about any workflow.
Of course, a lot of this can be ascribed to general lack of competence in doing computer stuff. But Git seems especially disorienting even to people with high general intelligence and years of experience solving difficult technical problems. There's something about its combination of commands that do not map cleanly to the underlying data model, complicated layers of automatic behavior that are only revealed deep within chatty jargon filled reference manual pages (or can only be found in the source code), broadly inconsistent terminology and UI elements, and CLI that tends to be either too verbose or too quiet by default.
It's hard to learn and hard to teach. That, in my opinion, makes it hard to use.