Your response implies the ai produced code was landed without review. That’s a possible outcome but I would hope it’s unlikely to account for the whole group at this scale. We’re of course still lacking data.
In my experience, review was inadequate back before we had AI spewing forth code of dubious quality. There's no reason to think it's any better now.
An actually-useful AI would be one that would make reviews better, do them itself, or at least help me get through reviews faster.
One: The work to get code to a reviewable point is significant. Skipping it, either with or without AI, is just going to elongate the review process.
Two: The whole point of using AI is to outsource the thought to a machine that can think much faster than you can in order to ship faster. If the normal dev process was 6 hours to write and 2 hours to review, and the AI dev process was 1 hour to write and 8 hours to review, the author will say "hey why is review taking so long; this defeats the purpose". You can't say "code review fixes these problems" and then bristle at the necessary extra review.