It's not different from saying that monkey with a camera can have copyright, or someone giving monkey a camera gets it, if monkey makes a picture.
I still think the law has much gray are in it though. In between Monkey and Human Photographer with a finished, edited photo, there are many shades of gray with any number of technology-mediated transformations of the work. AI-driven methods of sharpening a photo, for example . Why should the photographer own the resulting AI-adjusted photo's copyright? Certainly they own the original, but it was AI that made the end result. Not unlike a writer making a corpus of text for Tencent's algorithm to learn how to write its own articles, I think.
I'm asking the question, because I honestly don't know: Where would/should the line be drawn?