If it works, what's wrong with doing this? Obviously, don't turn your brain off. Be critical and work with the AI. But it's not like there's a shortage of tokens. They're only getting cheaper as time goes by. If, by spending enough tokens, you end up with a working feature, then this is a valid method of doing the work.
It's just several really big ifs:
- Does "no errors" == working feature? Only if the tests are good, and even then...
- Are the tests good? Only if the person overseeing the LLM is checking the thoroughness and quality of the tests; being critical, as you say
- Is the developer willing to be/capable of being critical, or are they using the tooling as a way to avoid such things as much as possible?
You should consult the code owner or primary set of authors before proposing a large rewrite. But if you do this, you should understand very well the pros/cons of throwing away all of this old code, documentation, and unit tests that have an implicit dependency on the existing structure.
I worry that if you are just vibe coding and letting the AI rewrite everything at will, you could not be further from understanding the details involved.