That’s a very rigid way of looking at this. There’re many reasons why a specific boss fight might be annoying and why the player might have ended up fighting it.But if you were going to find boss fights annoying, you wouldn't be going down this path to begin with. This is like going to a pizza parlour and asking for burgers instead because you don't like pizza - it's a bizarre request following a bizarre choice. The developers have already provided you with a way (perhaps more than one) to bypass this fight, why trouble them with yet another? Surely they have better things to spend their time on.
RPG’s are kinda supposed to give the player a wide variety of gameplay opportunities, some more optimal, some less so, and reactivity to them. And one of the big yet unosolved challenges in cRPG desing (well, CP2077 isn’t really cRPG strictly speaking since it’s more like a mash up of GTA and DX:HR...) is how to make failure and defeat interesting, so that it doesn’t necessarily need to result in a reload and repetition, but rather keeps the player going with a desire to witness the results and effects of those failures.
You might consider yielding a stupid idea, but if I had made a solo with a hint of diplomacy under his belt (yes, it should be tied to character stats), I would cherish the idea that there were opportunities to utilize that build in - sometimes even wildly - unconventional ways that bear their own reactivities and consequences (whereas, in this particular case, you would reload and repeat until victorious, which is your prerogative).
And I can’t really think anything more important in an RPG, than widening the gameplay scale... even with relatively minuscule mundanities that might seem redundant on the surface (which this yielding thing isn’t).
The kind of thought that there’s no changing your mind and trying a different approach is also the reason why I loathe gated skillchecks as a cheap and rigid linearizing solution of guiding the player through a specific path.