I think there's a couple levels here:

First of all, building a system that constrains the output of the AI sufficiently, whether that's typing, testing, external validation, or manual human review in extremis. That gets you the best result out of whatever harness or orchestration you're using.

Secondly, there's the level at which you're intervening, something along the hierarchy of "validate only usage from the customer perspective" to "review, edit, and validate every jot and tiddle of the codebase and environment". I think for relatively low importance things reviewing at the feature level (all code, but not interim diffs) is fine, but if you're doing network protocol you better at least validate everything carefully with fuzzing and prop testing or something like that.

And then you've got how you structure your feedback to the LLM itself - is it an in-the-loop chat process, an edit-and-retry spec loop, go-nogo on a feature branch, or what? How does the process improve itself, basically?

I agree with you entirely that the responsibility rests on the human, but there are a variety of ways to use these things that can increase or decrease the quality of code to time spent reviewing, and obviously different tasks have different levels of review scrutiny, as well.