This approach is essentially the PR workflow preferred by the author. Why let an LLM make huge changes to your working copy just for you to revert them next, instead of just writing patches to be asynchronously reviewed? What you propose is no way of doing pair programming in particular, and seems to support the author’s argument.
1. There is not a mention of "pair programming" in the comment I was addressing. As often happens, the discussion evolves.
2. The point is, that you are training the AI through this process. You can do pair programming afterwards (or not). Aim to instruct it to give you ballpark answers first, and take it from there.