BS. Author got copyright on a graphic novel, i.e. an arranged series of whatever images plus authored text. Even if author got copyright on individual images (because of iterative prompting to get useful results), and in any jurisdiction where copyright is automatic/does not need to be claimed/received the author actually does, it still is unremarkable. Claiming the algorithm to be the author would still be unremarkable in terms of copyright as long as it is a person or legal entity claiming those rights. Having the algorithm hold the copyright would be interesting (but copyright presupposes a human or human controlled legal entity) See: monkey-selfies where at issue wasn't whether a monkey could have creative intent, but whether a monkey coud hold copyright (no, obviating the need for an answer on creative intent).

Read an SF novel once where an AI was held by a legal entity, and that AI ran that legal entity, which was how it gained autonomy. Fun enough, but a legal entity would still need a human ultimate beneficial owner and human director / decision maker. Those can be shills, regularly are even, but that does not diminish their liability nor means acknowledging the AI's personhood or whatever.