Hmm... Sounds a lot like how a photograph still gets copyright. The photographer, even if they take hundreds of photos, choses the camera, timing, lighting, lens, any after-effects, etc... This is judged enough to get copyright.
Now, the guy who had his camera grabbed by an ape, who then took a selfie with it, doesn't get copyright, because it wasn't intentional. Oddly enough if he'd handed the camera over, he probably would have. Note: Court case may have been appealed or whatever since.
If you're using something like ChatGPT in an "active" fashion, in that you're reviewing the output, adjusting your request, editing the text, and such to improve the presentation, well, same sort of thing, I think. It's like taking a piece of stone or wood, and changing up what you carve out of it depending on how the stone works out.
And yes "selection, coordination, and arrangement" sounds a bit right to be enough for copyright. She might not be able to copyright a given sentence spat out by ChatGPT, but the entire work, yes.
It's like how paint colors aren't really copyrightable, but a painting is. The word "word" isn't copyrightable, but technically I could claim copyright on this post.