Sprints are a container of fixed size to put work into. This container can be useful sometimes, but that depends on the nature of the work being done, the humans involved, the group social dynamics, and a myriad of external factors. There are combinations of those parameters where the sprint is almost always the wrong container. As an example, take pure or applied research. I've seen such work shoehorned into sprints to the detriment of productivity, to the point of killing it almost completely.
Related to this is that sprints and their associated concepts mechanize and formalize something that may or may not need such. Applying something like Scrum almost always has one engaged in motions that are disconnected or even counter-productive to the local environment. That said, it sure is a lot easier to pick a methodology off the shelf than it is to engage in sober, thoughtful, and rational assessment of your situation's organizational needs. There's also risk inherent in that too, but one effective counter to that is to incrementally add/subtract process as needed.
Given the above, I consider process-heavy management to be a signal for prospective employment -- on the very much negative side. It tells me a few things, mainly about the way management's group mind works and also about what my future role in such a group would be (i.e., more part of organizational machinery than a creative agent).
The last point I'll make is that I just find the experience needlessly draining. A job typically lasts years. It's more of a marathon than a sprint. If it was a marathon with a few necessary sprinting periods, that might be bearable. If you really are sprinting constantly (the next sprint starting immediately after one concludes), that's a good way to generate burnout.