If you're going to that trouble, finish the swing. The final product here is BAD.
The person reading the resume doesn't know it's automated so no credit points for that, and it looks like a person didn't pay attention to basic detail. This does you no good, it hurts you.
Example glitches:
The contact row dropping LinkedIn to next line. The ragged bullets hanging to the left of the left margin relative to headlines. The dates not right aligned. The too-large font making it take ALL of two pages for just a decade.
These things do get judged at a glance when someone's looking at lots of PDFs.
Also, just because a resume goes into an ATS doesn't mean the hiring manager isn't looking at the original PDF. Usually the ATS surfaces/sorts applicants but one reads the original PDF or Word doc anyway, because the ATS interpretation is often unreliable on its own.
All that said...
One idea to counter the above advice is either in italics under the contact line or in a clear footer, put a colophon or imprint saying: This PDF was auto-generated from my job history data, blogged about the automation here: https://full.web.link/resume-blog-post
But still, exhibit a higher bar for the end product. Engineers that fall in love with over-engineering without regard for the output and "end user experience" are everywhere, and a problem. Engineers that produce above-the-bar output end users appreciate, while ironically over-engineering, with full tongue in cheek recognition of the over-engineering, are rare.