I don’t understand the meaning of the question “what is the point of the character?”
I guess I mean, a major if not essential part, the core, of Robin Hood is that he’s a hero. He takes from the rich and he gives to the poor, out of the goodness of his heart, because it’s the right thing to do. Sure, the very earliest versions of him were less like that, but those aren’t influential in the complex story we have now.
In this, he’s much like Superman. You can have a version of Superman who’s not a hero, there have been dozens, but they aren’t Superman - their whole schtick is Non-Hero Superman (e.g. Hancock or arguably Invicible, later in his development) or even Evil Superman (Homelander, Ultraman, Plutonian, Omniman, etc.). Telling stories about actual Superman who’s not a hero is pointless - just do an alternate.
Similarly, if you want to do a version of Robin Hood who’s not a hero, well, you can do that, but why bother? Just pick another famous mythologised outlaw who’s less heroic - Dick Turpin, Captain Blood, Cartouche, Hong Gil Dong, Ishikawa Goemon - or make up your own. Heck, there’s an entire sub genre of Western which is all this. If you’re doing it with Robin Hood, why are you doing it? Is it as a cheap name check? Or is there a genuinely interesting story here tied to the myth of the character and England? I guess we’ll find out.