Creativity is defined by what one did in the creative process, not whether you did something else outside of the creative process or not. I.e. if the only thing you do is say "make me a piece of art, I'll pay you $x" then you had 0 creative involvement. Not because you paid for it, but because of the lack of doing anything during the creation process.

The same is true of using any tool. If you just click a premade and generic "process photo" button in an image editor for every photo you get then you're doing no creative work (unless that whole action is a meta statement itself or something). If you mess with the different options and settings to find the one which matches your creative vision then you've played a part in the creative process, even if you weren't the one responsible for the code of how the pixels changed and paid for the software to do that part.

To LLMs directly, if you just say "make me some art" then you've done nothing creative as well. If you iterate and mess around with what you like until you get something you find interesting, then you've played, what seems to me, the biggest part in the creativity process of that output (which has nothing to do with where the code to match that vision of the output came from). I think LLMs and creativity can be confusing because "make me some art" will produce something that, at a glance, looks very much like we'd expect creative art to look like (regardless the reason or if it actually is), and we often falsely jump to the conclusion anything that looks creative out of an LLM must therefore only ever be able to source from the LLM. This would be like assuming because an image editor has that generic "process photo" button one can never do anything creative with an image editor.

Commissioning a painting, if it needs describing a scene, a thought or some direction, then yes.

This is literally what photographers do. Most do not even deal with exposure or any other setting. "Auto".

Explore the editing angle: do you really think that absolutely nothing of artistic value would be lost if we just stopped editing films entirely? Or is it clear that an editor can bring value simply by offering input?

Certainly the extent of the input matters - "cool art of a dude" is a very generic concept, but at a certain point, just writing the idea down has to count as creative, because otherwise books are all uncreative.