What I'm tryingto say is that if we're talking about the kind of AI that is in the OP, then a programming AI which follows that principle would not be able to replace a team of people. You would still need a team to come up with, firstly, all the right questions that need to be asked about the game's design, then answer those questions, then translate them to something so detailed based on which a programming AI can then generate code. At the end of this chain, you would essentially still need a programmer who knows exactly how these commands need to be presented to the AI so that the generated code meets the technical requirements that have been provided, i.e. you would need skills in technical thinking and you would also need to know the AI's "language" to be able to communicate that detailed information effectively. And you would have had to design the whole game in the first place.
So, with current "AI" capabilities (again, what we have today is not true AI, it's trial and error on steroids), you could definitely have a tool that can generate code for you, but there is so much more work you need to do before you even get to coding anything, and even then you need to know how to communicate that information to the "AI" in an unambiguous way, which would essentially require a "language" of its own - abstracted away from high level code specifics, but precise enough that code specifics can be derived from it. I.e. you would be replacing one programming language for another, even more abstract one. Similar to how C is an abstraction of Assembly, which is an abstraction of Machine Code, which is an abstraction of electrical signals.
But yeah, with boundless AI capabilities, you could replace the team, Todd, humanity, the planet with AI and it could create a game all on its own. That is the bit we're in agreement with. What we don't seem to agree on is that somehow not having to write C or some other similarly high-level language would allow you to create a game without any other skill except your creativity.