I wonder if it could keep giving us useful data without the precision rotation? Intuitively it seems like we should be able to figure out where it's pointing by star-matching plus dead reckoning based on the last frame.
Also, every mission comes to an end eventually - better to do it in the right way and have the right amount of propellent saved for either a graveyard orbit or de-orbiting. It met the mission timeline and goals.
In practice these highly precise measurements, at least in the domain I'm familiar with, become sensor fusion problems where you take a lot of sources of position info, weight them based on their accuracy, and integrate them over time. The less stable the platform, the more error is induced by the integrating over time. Nothing in that realm is really all-or-nothing, as we're seeing with Hubble as it racks up more and more failures, but the loss of the rotation will mean more error in combining position references which will mean less accurate final observations. They may no longer be that much more accurate than measurements obtained by other means.
I'm not sure if I explained that very coherently, it's a complex field that I used to write software in but, well, I was the person writing the software, not the person figuring out the theory. The general idea is that space-based instruments tend to have a bunch of different factors that go into their final accuracy and that accuracy normally gets worse over time as you run out of fuel and things degrade and ultimately stop functioning. Fortunately since space-based systems cost so much to build and launch, the teams behind them have usually put a lot of thought into how they'll continue to get the best use out of them as they get older. That often means having future plans for different missions that just don't require as much accuracy, which is the case with Gaia---it's ending this "phase" of the mission plan.