When people refer to AI as a tool, they mean as a part of the drawing/rendering workflow, not the whole. If you went through the entire design workflow without the AI, you can take full ownership over that. That part still takes your skill. But if the AI still builds most if not all of the image, you can't really claim ownership over the image, since from that point, the AI makes (basically) all of the skillful decisions.

Only if you start being a part of actively shaping the drawing, like providing a sufficiently original base image or other advanced original input, drawing over or recomposing the image afterwards, you can get something you were actually a part of it. That's the (closer) equivalent of an artists brush. The artist uses and applies the brush in a way to make something that becomes bigger than it's parts. Using AI for the full image would be equivalent to applying a stamp. It can be a very pretty stamp, but something else made it.

Saying "I made this", isn't false per se, but the omission of "by having the AI draw my design." does drastically change the perception to the point it's a deceptive. It's just about being honest. If you made a cool design, stick to taking credit for the design. At the end of the day, not being a part of putting the design into a drawing is not uncommon, but certainly better than being deceptive, even if some people may dislike the AI use. Those people will hate you all the more for lying by omission over it if that was an issue for them, and it can certainly also draw unhappy responses from others who would be fine if you told them honestly.