It sounds like you're more describing a stacked PR workflow. I achieve the same thing using stacked PRs and can still have a bunch of the "fix stuff" intermediate commits that get squashed away, because who can really predict whether everything will pass CI in the first attempt. :)
I don't want to have a stack of PRs where each one depends on the previous, where each PR needs to justify itself separately while at the same time being interdependent and ordered. That adds cognitive overhead and makes it take longer to get merged, if it gets merged at all.
It's possible the tooling could handle that case much better, but until it's sufficiently better that it's as simple as `gh pr create` by the author and one click of a merge button (or equivalent "@somebot merge") by the reviewer, that's still too much.
