I think the argument is, is it better to have a galaxy of planets that have repeating details and are 'boring', or a single star system of unique planets?
I don't mind boring planets. I'd take a boring and unique one over a copy pasta 'fun' one.
As far as handcrafted goes, yes, there's one place they could do that fully and that's Sol. Obviously.
The ideal situation for me would for most to be plain and uninteresting, making those that have some spectacular features stand out more (but reeled in a bit from some of the whackiness observed in Horizons-- this isn't Star Citizen, and it also ain't No Man's Sky). When I say features I mean for instance one huge canyon system or a massive mountain range, not covering half or even the entire surface.
On a planetary level it's more dynamic to have extreme regions localised, rather than be global.
I mean yes, for the half-eaten cookie effect we have irregular potatoes, and maybe at some point they can go smaller still with large asteroids.
If this cloned tiles system is indeed intentional as it is now, then it could also be that extreme features like a huge canyon would look even more obviously fake if the maths goblins created a planet with that same canyon three times. One would assume though there's are exceptions in the code to tell it "Never have this feature more than once." (one does wonder why this isn't in effect now for the interstellar chickens, space cats and galactic dragons)-- but even then a dramatic region would be remembered and easily noticed again on another planet. I mean we've seen the same regions on multiple planets as it is now so..