Does that really work well in practice, though? I find that I might get the base functionality down to a workable state, but then as you add the bells and whistles you're likely to find and fix your own bugs, realize you need to refactor, etc.

You can make all those changes in distinct, clean commits, but if the reviewer works commit by commit, they have to follow the evolution of your code rather than simply review the final state. You might argue that provides a basis for a better review, but it's also much more time consuming for the reviewer.