No, it's a well-defined term from an expert in the space and a member of the community [1], coined to describe an underserved group of people who didn't have existing terminology to describe themselves [2]. Reducing it to a "buzzword" to describe people who have "mental disorders" or "conditions" is a gross misunderstanding of both the term, the people it describes, and the space.
[1]: https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/
> When you leave a building, do you exit through the door or the window? I assume the door.
This is a poor example; I think discussing workouts suffices. If a workout is mentally engaging (bouldering, arial silks, an active team sport) it's easier to engage in than a simple, unengaging, repeated task (weight lifting, running, cycling). Why? Because the mentally engaging exercise is appealing because it absorbs attention, which can help overcome the diminished reinforcement cycle.
If you don't already have a workout habit, framed to an ADHD person, it's a crap value proposition: spend time and energy to do something boring and you should feel better, but historically the things people say will make you feel better never have that effect, and you only ever end up with less time and energy to do the things you actually want to do.
In my personal experience, I loathe going to the gym on my own because it's boring and takes time and energy that I would rather spend interacting with friends or playing games: it's a "task" that I "should" do, but it never feels rewarding when I do it. However, if I go bouldering, I'm not bored because my brain focuses on the "problem" of positioning and coordination and I feel like I"m having fun because of the problem I can satisfy my brain with, which distracts me from the energy expenditure both in the logistics (going to gym, changing, showering, etc) and from the actual work my body is doing.