I'll espouse the flip side of this:

I've worked with a handful of excellent QA. In my opinion - the best QA is basically a product manager lite. They understand the user, and they act from the perspective of the user when evaluating new features. Not the "plan" for the feature. The actual implementation provided by development.

This means they clarify edge cases, call out spots that are confusing or tedious for a user, and understand & test how features interact. They help take a first draft of a feature to a much higher level of polish than most devs/pms actually think through, and avoid all sorts of long term problems with shipping features that don't play nicely.

I think it's a huge mistake to ask QA to do automation tests - Planning for them? Sure. Implementation? No. That's a dev's job, you should assign someone with that skillset (and pay them accordingly).

QA is there to drive quality up for your users, the value comes from the opinions they make after using what the devs provide (often repeatedly, like a user) - not from automating that process.