Since most commenters are talking about the importance of CS and the value of a CS degree, let me share an opinionated response touching on a more nuanced underlying assumption.
You're not in college for getting certified in a particular "major". You are there to develop a strong (broad) foundation of understanding and skills, on top of which you can (in the future) paste domain-specific knowledge to rapidly level-up and acquire skills.
IMHO, concentrating on CS to the exclusion of all else (eg: as an undergraduate major) is too limiting, too early in one's development. Computers happen to be a very "artificial" system with arcane rules, and an understanding of computers tends to be less generalizable than an understanding of natural systems -- both physical systems (science/engineering) and human systems (humanities). The more mathematical aspects of CS are definitely generalizable (to the extent that computation is basically applied math!), but IMHO CS as a field has not developed enough to make that link obvious -- let alone teach it to undergrads. Also, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail -- we are currently infatuated with "CS". That should (likely) relax to a more reasonable state in ~10 years. (eg: there is absolutely no reason for "machine learning" or "artificial intelligence" to be considered a sub-field of CS, other than the fact that incidentally it happens to be implemented on computers. Breakthrough ideas in ML will likely come from other fields.)
Computers are definitely a fantastic tool, and offer great leverage, if and only if you have developed a refined "taste" of problems worth tackling, things worth building, and visions worth pursuing. You will likely not acquire that taste by just studying CS.
A little pondering will make one realize how it is quite impossible for every "major" to have the same number of "credits" worth of knowledge -- and exactly enough to fill up 4 years of requirements. The corollary is that not all course credits are equally valuable. If you want the best value for your time in college, try to pick the most challenging/foundational/important courses in a field, and then, instead of spending too much time on the relative "fluff" in the same field, go find equally foundational courses in an adjacent field. The easier stuff can be tacked on top later with little effort. That way, you are uniquely well-placed to make interesting connections, and are better prepared to respond optimally to a changing environment. (See: https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...) The analogy in the context of investing would be: it is crazy try betting on a single company over the long run (~50+ years); better to bet on a broader portfolio.
If you are looking for a very concrete suggestion, one way to operationalize that advice: in addition to programming/CS, learn a bunch of math, a bunch of at least one of the hard sciences (Physics/Chemistry/Biology), and the basics of engineering / systems modeling (linear system theory, control theory, signal processing, etc.). IMHO, the humanities can wait till one is older/wiser -- it can be learned easily enough outside university, and is probably wasted on 20 year olds without enough life experience. Nothing wrong with the minimum humanities requirements -- pick something you find interesting and try to get the flavor rather than getting bogged down with the details. All that was just individual learning. If you can work on collaborative projects, and learn to work well with others and lead when necessary, it will serve you well in life (that is a rare and extremely valuable skill).
Needless to say, this is not the path to a 4.0 GPA, or the highest paying internship/first-job, etc. but you get out what you put in, so if you work sincerely, you'll be fine in the long run. See https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/play-in-hard-mode/