I see the problem, but imagine this like a search and replace function in a texteditor: I usually don't hit "replace all", but look at every particular instance and decide, if it should be replaced.
There's a reason that feature is often jokingly referred to as "search and destroy". If someone wants to create a script to find all instances of a certain thing, and make it easier for him to change it, as long as there's a human being to look at the text and approve each change individually, I would have less objection to that, but that's still a bit too much automation for my tastes; it's likely that the human will become quick-on-the-button to approve the changes if 99% of them are OK--but that's exactly the case where he should be most vigilant.
Don't misunderstand--I have nothing against automated processes that /add/ new pages, or processes that that change programmatic features (like updating the wiki syntax or moving titles), but the actual /content/, the /meaningful/ human-entered text that constitutes an article, should only be changed by another human.