Indeed “it misses deeper issues […] such as when the wrong change has been made“ which human review will catch.

What it will do, is notice inconsistencies like a savant who can actually keep 12 layers of abstraction in mind at once. Tiny logic gaps with outsized impact, a typing mistake that will lead to data corruption downstream, a one variable change that complete changes your error handling semantics in a particular case, etc. It has been incredibly useful in my experience, it just serves a different purpose than a peer review.

ouch, sounds like your manager is more a problem than the llm review!

i find it as a good backstop to catch dumb mistakes or suggest alternatives but is not a replacement for human review (we require human review but llm suggestions are always optional and you're free to ignore)

Formatting should be handled by deterministic tools with formally specified rules like prettier. This should never be a part if code review.

IME it's impossible to fight this people. They have to learn through consequences. There's no other way.

Don't give up on the automated code review entirely though, the models and prompts are getting better every day.