To me, claiming Feynman didn't write the lecture book is a stretch since they are fundamentally based on his lectures. But I think you are misconstruing some of her arguments and claims. I suggest you watch the whole video, because imo it does a good job at analyzing Feynman's figure.
You should watch the whole video. From memory, the video author claims that the books are not based directly on the recordings nor on material that Feynman wrote himself, but rather on lecture notes written by another professor who had to cover for Feynman (who is also listed as one of the authors in the book). She also mentions how those lecture notes from this other professor correct some small mistakes Feynman made in some calculations and diagrams from the lecture. Her claim is that Feynman was not the person who actually wrote the text of the book.
Grinnell College's (my alma mater) CS program first intro course is entirely in Racket. The program basically has three sequential intro courses: functional programming with Racket, imperative programming with C, and OOP with Java.
It is very concerning that these hallucinations passed through peer review. It's not like peer review is a fool-proof method or anything, but the fact that reviewers did not check all references and noticed clearly bogus ones is alarming and could be a sign that the article authors weren't the only ones using LLMs in the process...