At a minimum you should be considering organizational change fatigue. It takes expenditure of political capital to enact these changes even if you don’t see it right away. Spending it on this does mean you’re less able to spend it on others. So asking “is this the most important thing to spend that capital on?” doesn’t seem like a bad question. Additionally, if someone perceives you as being wasteful in how you choose to spend that capital they may be even more resistant in the future to changes that are far less cosmetic.

> a change as small as a naming convention

This "small" change had to be split into 29 parts, so that each part stays below 100kB. This means nearly 3MB of changed code. How many hours did developers have to spend to consider what needs to be changed, make the change and then validate it? In my opinion these are hours wasted, that could be better spent on some real problems.

The post says it was a single global search/replace (probably a grep) operation, plus some automated merge checks. Because most of what was most affected was literally test scripts, almost all of it sounds like it was automated and the vast majority of the "hours wasted" weren't person hours but machine hours.

The reviewer still needs to read it one by one if he decides to adopt it. And it is likely to be many hours.