I have no control over how WMF presents its expenses.
For years WMF foundation has run "we need money or Wikipedia will die" ads while spending a quarter of the budget on making grants. No one forced them to write that ad copy. It's progress that they've toned it down, but we shouldn't pretend that this criticism is surprising or completely unwarranted.
You have control over your reading comprehension. You called a number that was a very small portion of the technical infrastructure cost, the technical infrastructure cost.
You should also probably split out any of the grants related to technical infrastructure (i presume at least some of this grant money might have historically gone to wikimedia Deutschland to do technical infrastructure on wikidata, but im not sure off the top of my head)
I'm sure you could make many arguments that some of WMF's expenditures are not needed (i'd even agree). That doesn't mean it can survive on a few million dollars.
If you raise money saying it is for wikipedia, it should be spent only on wikipedia or IMO it is misleading.
It gets fuzzier as you go out to the promotion-of-free-knowledge stuff, for sure. You can argue its connection to keeping information being contributed to wikipedia, and the long term health of the community, but it's definitely less directly keep-the-lights-on.