A team assigns a refactoring issue to Copilot cloud agent for a payments repository. Copilot opens a draft pull request that changes validation logic, updates tests, and modifies a workflow file. The team lead wants to merge after the unit tests pass because the PR was generated from an approved issue. The repository requires status checks, but CODEOWNERS review is not required for workflow changes. Which option best identifies the anti-pattern and mitigation?

The anti-pattern is attempting to merge a pull request without proper review, even if it was generated by an AI. While Copilot can automate code generation, it doesn't guarantee correctness or adherence to all project standards. The proposed change to validation logic is critical for a payments repository and requires human scrutiny. The mitigation is to review the draft PR and require owner approval. This ensures that a human expert validates the changes, especially critical logic like validation, before merging. Even though the issue was approved, the implementation still needs verification. "Require workflowdispatch before Copilot creates branches" is not directly relevant to the anti-pattern of merging unreviewed code. "Convert the draft pull request to a normal pull request" doesn't address the lack of review; it just changes the PR status. "Add Copilot as a required pull request reviewer" is incorrect because Copilot is the generator, not a reviewer, and cannot provide human-level approval or accountability.