The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?
5e, though highly successful, seems like largely a reaction against 4e (and to a lesser extent, the 3.x/PF model of game design). Paizo had several choices to make when it came to designing Pathfinder 2 while keeping a "D&D flavor."
1. They could try to mimic 5e D&D, though without the name recognition, market presence, corporate status, and 5 years of design that goes with 5e. Against that juggernaut, how could they compete with that?
2. They could go OSR, with streamlined mechanics and fewer options - think Castles and Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Forbidden Lands, et al. These games have their niche audiences and place in the gaming space, but none have the traction of D&D or PF.
3. They could have just done a "soft reboot" of PF and made it very similar to 3.x/PF1. They would be competing against themselves and the massive amount of material they released.
4. Or they can address the crunch and tactical combat of 3.x/4e, try to make a game that people are wanting and that they (the designers) wanted to make. Try to streamline it. Try to make a game that feels more like the classic D&D experience (as opposed to 4e).
So I think they made a game that they could enjoy, their fans could enjoy. If it's not for you, just ignore it, like I ignore Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Numenera.