This is definitely not true, and indeed it’s actually the opposite. Have a read of https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-quality-on-inaturalist/7507 from almost 2 years ago:
“1. Vision suggestions are 60-80% accurate, depending on how you define “accurate,” but more like 95% if you only accept the “we’re pretty sure” suggestions”
The CV has hugely improved since then as well, so these numbers would be even higher. So certainly not ‘normal for iNaturalist’. As a single example, there are now obscure, Australian brown moths that the CV regularly correctly IDs that I struggle to differentiate myself.
There seems to be this very strange inverse relationship where the better the CV gets, the more people criticise it for some odd reason. By all means, the CV is not perfect, and there are many taxa for which it struggles, but I never see anyone praising its strong points/highlighting the things it gets right, only ever focusing on the negative stuff.