If you're running tons of product/UX experiments code review is just going to waste everybody's time. But the volume of changes you can make now is so large, someone could touch something important about at any given time without proper oversight.
IMO an effective team has to be able to either trust each other enough/be accountable enough that code review is mostly unnecessary, or everybody just works really independently on mostly separable things, or you regularly pair/mob-program.
If you can trust your colleagues not to pump out code without messing it all up or turning everything into slop, or creating large amounts of work for other people, things are great. Realistically most dev teams have a wide range of skills and personalities and people also make mistakes, and code review helps us build shared knowledge and collaborate.
Maybe there is too much of a moral hazard from the reviewer's role as a cosigner, or some people are only as conscientious as necessary to get things done (not a problem writing every line by hand)... but people can ruin code review for everyone else by demanding an asymmetric level of accountability/judgment and oversight.
The bigger issue for me is whether or not you still do code review, you need to build shared knowledge within teams. I really think we should be reviewing our colleagues' coding agent session logs
Not even to critique them (but that could be useful), but just to understand what it is they are actually trying to do/what mental model they're operating under, and if there are issue in the PR, what miscommunication or technique or process could help fix it? I think a lot of people feel that asking to see those logs is invasive or embarrassing, but the problem is that it's just really hard to build a model for how someone works or thinks without it. You don't need that in a deontological sense, but you do if you want to fix coordination problems.