I've noticed this with some GMs as well. To be fair, the material doesn't always give clear and concise direction on how to tailor the campaign to the PCs. Paizo's adventure paths come with a players guide that gives traits and other items that sets up PCs for the campaign. It varies greatly between APs if those items are carried through in the material. Sometimes a burden is left on the GM to add it. I dont mind that though, as I find it key to any successful campaign and one of my favorite GM prep practices.The ones I played in that were ... OK, were OK to play in, in groups that were gaming together primarily as an excuse to hang out (if that makes sense). There were some that were ... OK, at least for a while, if a GM insisted on running them instead of trying to come up with their own material. There was some overlap in those.
An adventure or a campaign about the PCs and their interests and goals feels different to me, as a player and as a GM. I don't remember any instances of any such adventure I was involved with feeling like a time-filler to me, but it's possible there was at least one I don't remember.
In my experience, playing a published adventure is almost never about the PCs or their interests or their goals, precisely because the adventures are written to be dropped into play at just about any table. I've found that the longer the adventure (or series of), the more likely this is to be a problem.
If I'm playing in a game and the material feels very disconnected form the players and their characters, I tend to blame the GM first. Though, many a published adventure does nothing in their favor as well.