This wording is just plainly wrong. Nothing is ever made "entirely by AI" and we need to stop framing it in this way.
It is a laborious process to create an "AI". A human has to pick the artwork from which the AI should learn.
@j2bryson https://twitter.com/mashable/status/1327603942532943872

Humans will turn many knobs, push levers and make dozens of modeling decisions to turn the system into something that suits human taste. Finally, the gallery has surely selected those pieces of art it found especially extraordinary. For me, it is HUMAN MADE art USING a complex

and sometimes serendipitous tool. I agree that the methods of machine learning create a big chunk of that art, but it is in no ways "made entirely by the AI". Without human artists to learn from, there would be nothing here.

Last but not least: I find some of the examples extraordinarily touching and interesting.
However, there is no machine magic in this other than that the system picked up topics and patterns in the way humans create their art and rephrased it in an interesting way.

tl; dr.: While the "machine part" of these pieces of art is large, it is genuine art: it stirs up emotions and ideas. But I think that this is mainly because humans have set the system up, trained it and selected the results.