It's a fairly common thing so don't take that as criticism. I think that it is caused by people, most often not the actual subjects, that like to assign meaning to work and people, often more than is due. Create a framework where there is some kind of order that only exists in the mind of the narrator, not reality. We see this often when we hear accusations against groups of devs too; always from outsiders.

When you review something, you'll use git blame a lot, to try and find context. I rarely look at the name. I just need the commit. And go. The name is useful if you're working off a huge codebase and you wanna send an email to the author about it. But otherwise it has no meaning.

Most commits (what GH counts) I've done as an independent contributor (hundreds) were focused on very narrow things. In fact, I've had bigger proposals declined with "sorry you're not the maintainer and this changes too much" - which imho is still a bit eww, but if no one is going to review it, might as well not work on it. I rarely propose large things since a decade or so. The best change is removing 10 lines and adding 2.