That is authorising the transaction and it makes sense for the card issuer to handle that. It's proving that it's "you" using the card and you really intended to pay for that thing. Maybe they SMS 2FA you, maybe they have a biometric check, etc. All cool.
The case where you have a dispute with the merchant (i.e transaction is authorised but problem is 1 layer up - you feel that reality doesn't match up with the payment record!) is different. You paid as intended but the thing you wanted didn't happen. Right now things are bundled together.
Sometimes this is handled by marketplace (think amazon, vs paypal/ebay and their different balances of favouring merchant vs consumer) but overall (e.g. consider shopify who are basically uncontactable in case of merchant disputes) I don't think the whole payments system makes this very clear. In practice it is sort of a shifting balance between various parties.
There are actually big questions of who eats risk between consumer, platform, merchant and various payment processors for a given transaction and things are a bit obscured. In practice all the parties EXCEPT the consumer know what is really going on.
It could be made much more clear who has the responsibility for resolving merchant disputes and their records could be made public, and this could be a more explicit point of difference in payment / marketplace offerings.
I think lots of people would make different decisions about where and how they bought things if they could see statistics about how disputes are handled.
I am not arguing for any specific method of solving disputes or more government intervention in general, I just think that if things were more transparent (mandatory reporting) fewer people would feel ripped off, people could make more informed decisions, and marketplaces / processors who are adept at resolving disputes would be rewarded as they deserve. Basically, the market would work better.