Not regularly, no. But sometimes a feature change requires a dependent architectural change — a refactoring of the internal library code that the feature will be implemented into. Or sometimes the language of choice doesn't have a pre-commit-hookable CLI auto-formatter, only an IDE auto-formatter, and the dev editing a file triggers formatting changes to be applied that should have been done in a previous change. And sometimes, a dev thinks it's a good idea to change the representation and decoding logic for a data file or embedded data-structure literal at the same time that they're adding an entry to it (usually because they can't represent the added item's additional semantics without said change.)
> But usually you can break a feature into different parts (e.g. database, backend, frontend) and merge them in separately.
So you've already written all that code, because you couldn't get anything to "work" for end-to-end testing until you wrote all parts of it. The patchset as a whole is inherently large.
Now what? How do you "break [the] feature into different parts" when it's already all written and committed on a WIP branch?
That's right: cherry-picking and rebasing.
The GP is arguing against bothering with this process. Presumably because git-rebase(1) is unintuitive to them, and they don't realize that you should start this workflow with a copy of your branch, or a new branch with cherry-picked commits from your WIP branch, to guarantee non-destructive rebasing. Like making a copy of a layer in Photoshop. (Yes, you can always restore your branch from the reflog, so it's technically always non-destructive; but `git checkout -b foo` is something you learn in Chapter 1 of the Git book.)