I would hope a CEO, especially a technical one, would have enough sense to couple that statement to some useful business metric, because in isolation it might be announcement of public humiliation.
IMO it's only really an issue if a competent human wasn't involved in the process, basically a person who could have written it if needed, then they do the work connecting it to the useful stuff, and have appropriate QA/testing in place...the latter often taking far more effort than the actual writing-the-code time itself, even when a human does it.
That said, I've seen even higher ratios. But never in any place that survived for long.
Everything is getting forced into a scalable, general purpose way, that most apps have to add a ridiculous amount of boilerplate.
Combine that with generic functions, framework boilerplate, OS/browser stuff, or explicit x-y-z code then your 'boilerplate' (ie repetitive, easily reproducible) easily gets to 25% of code you're programmers write every month. If your job is >75% pure human cognition problem solving you're probably in a higher tier of jobs than the vast majority of programmers on the planet.
It's only boilerplate if you write it again to set almost the same thing again. What, granted, if you are writing bare terraform config, it's probably both.
But on either case, if your terraform config is repetitive and a large part of the code on an entire thing (not a repo, repos are arbitraty divisions, maybe "product", but it's also a bad name). Than that thing is certainly close to useless.
Architecturally, it sounds like different architecture components map somewhere close to 1:1 to teams, rather than teams hacking components to be closer coupled to each other because they have the same ownership.
I'd see too much boilerplate as being a organization/management org issue rather than a code architecture issue
Not the developer who has written the same effective stanza 10 times before.