A paper has merit based on the the academic contribution. Being clear and precise, easily understandable, makes it a better paper. If you manage to prompt a LLM so that the result excels in these criteria it should be accepted.

With the attitude some students and vanity-auithors have there is already an incentive to produce pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo and see if you can get away with it. I mostly see a problem here in scalability, i.e. the pure mountain of noise that can be generated. Similar dangers are valid for journalism and democratic discourse in general imho.

One already decently working mitigation strategy is reputation (for authors, groups, conferences, ...) but of course this comes at the risk of overlooking some brilliant work that is coming from left field.