Definitely not a BS reason, at least for me. The less code I write, the less I have to work (in general). If I can reduce total effort, accomplish the goals for those who pay me, and still pull in good income, I'm happy.
If I get bored because I've been so efficient at making the people who pay me happy that I have bored free time, I'll use all that slack time I've buffered up to try something different or new without time pressures, otherwise, maybe I'll just go to the gym or for a walk.
I like programming, but I don't want me entire life to be nothing but programming. I don't know how some code 60+ hours a week every week. I did that when I was a kid and was mesmerized by the computing industry and wanted to know how things worked--I'm no longer mesmerized. The mysticism is gone and for me, it's just about solving interesting problems using computers that improve people's lives. The less code I have to write to survive, the more choice of direction I have in any additional desires to code. If you're doing theoretical CS work then by all means, pursue the mysticism, but that typically isn't in code, that's in developing foundational theory.
I don't want interesting problems in my code if it can be avoided, I want my code to help with interesting problems in the real world. Interesting problems in my code means I have complexity to deal with and makes my software more prone to issues, difficulty maintaining, difficulty adapting. The simpler the solution where feasible, the better.
Some roles don't give you this sort of flexibility to make sure you're not bored and in those roles, that's where you see these elaborate overly complicated systems where people tuck things into the deliverables when they're unneeded. To me, that's a management and/or structural problem. I don't think my desires are all too different than most peoples desires, no matter what people in professional environments say to make sure they still get paid and are professionally progressing.
