The purpose of DEI initiatives in most companies is not to actually create equity but to be able to demonstrate that you're doing something. If your company explicitly does "diversity hires" to hire people by skin color, they're clearly more interested in tokenism, which only serves the company, not the candidates.
I think "diversity hires" are fine for marginalised communities analogous to grants but this would apply to paid internships or apprentice programs, not regular positions. Otherwise as in your case it clearly sends a message that the candidates wouldn't qualify otherwise.
If a company takes DEI seriously, the best approach for diversity in hiring would be to recruit specifically from the target demographics via targeted advertising (the old-fashioned way, not Google ads). Having to apply a diversity filter to an already existing applicant pool will always create an impression of tokenism.
Of course the elephant in the room is that these are usually companies founded by white guys, run by white guys, owned by white guys, who mostly initially hired other white guys. In the past decades you might also have some Asian (specifically Chinese or Indian) guys in the mix and some might be openly gay or bi but they'll almost always share the same upper-middle class rich kid background. Trying to bolt on "diversity" to that after the fact is always going to be more about optics than genuine concern for marginalised folks.
The real thing to worry about is company culture as building a culture around a bunch of wealthy white guys is likely going to make it hard to be welcoming to people outside that microcosm, at least if you care about more than mere skin color. But from the sound of it, your company's attitude to DEI is more akin to that of a Victorian Englishman proudly presenting his "coloured" servants.