Things are moving in the other direction. Browser vendors have forced certificates used for browsers to a max life of 398 days.
There are multiple reasons, but you seem focused on the certificate management side. One advantage of doing things more frequently is they are forced to become more routine or automated. So shorter expirations should actually make expiration failures less likely over time. Of course the transition sucks.
Apple eventually clarified, and other root trust stores followed, by making longer-lived new certificates a policy violation rather than just not working on a Mac / iPhone.
That's a meaningful distinction. Certificates which lack SCTs (the proof that they were shown to Certificate Transparency logs before you) don't work in some popular browsers, but those certificates are not policy violations, they just don't work in browsers so you probably should not use them on a web site. In a handful of cases such certificates exist for legacy reasons (e.g. industrial environment that doesn't know anything about the "Web"), in other cases they're minted but not intended to be seen yet, for example Google's front end facing systems can do this.
When Google accidentally made some of those certificates live with insufficient SCTs they just did not work in Chrome - which is embarrassing but it was not a policy violation, the subsequent root cause analysis was Google's choice not mandated by the other root trust stores and there was no threat that anybody's trust would get revoked.
That lifetime is for domain certificates. CA certificates, which is what matters for the Let's Encrypt issue have much longer lifetimes, like 10 years.
There are multiple reasons, but you seem focused on the certificate management side. One advantage of doing things more frequently is they are forced to become more routine or automated. So shorter expirations should actually make expiration failures less likely over time. Of course the transition sucks.