Well, if you take "review the LLM output" in its most general way, I guess you can class everything under that. But I think it's worth talking about the problem in a bit more detail than that, because someone can easily say "Oh I definitely review the LLM output!" and still be pushing work onto other people.
The fact is that no matter whether we review the LLM output or not, no matter whether we write the code entirely by hand or not, there's always going to be the possibility of errors. So it's not some bright-line thing. If you're relatively lazier and relatively less thoughtful in the way you work, you'll make more errors and more significant errors. You'll look like you're doing the work, but your teammates have to do more to make up for the problems.
Having to work around problems your coworkers introduced is nothing new, but LLMs make it worse in a few ways I think. One is just, that old joke about there being four kinds of people: lazy and stupid, industrious and stupid, smart and lazy, and industrious and smart. It's always been the "industrious and stupid" people that kill you, so LLMs are an obvious problem there.
Second there's what I call the six-fingered hands thing. LLMs make mistakes a human wouldn't, which means the problem won't be in your hypothesis-space when you're debugging.
Third, it's very useful to have unfinished work look unfinished. It lets you know what to expect. If there's voluminous docs and tests and the functionality either doesn't work at all or doesn't even make sense when you think about it, that's going to make you waste time.
Finally, at the most basic level, we expect there to be some sort of plan behind our coworkers' work. We expect that someone's thought about this and that the stuff they're doing is fundamentally going to be responsive to the requirements. If someone's phoning it in with an LLM, problems can stay hidden for a long time.