The whole notion of consummation is for the man's benefit, not the woman's. So that if the woman gets pregnant, he's likely to be the father.
No, Either party to the marriage can seek annulment if the marriage isn’t consummated. Consummation is no guarantee that the child’s father is the husband, but that’s the assumption until proven otherwise. Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant . However, I have read that in the Regency, Jane Austen’s period, non consummation would not annul the marriage because what was required was the possibility of consummation. Impotence would be grounds for divorce bit I imagine that would rarely be sought. It would be interesting to know.
There’s a wealth of DNA and family histories that show that the husband might well not the father.
Traditionally, one of the purposes of marriage was for having children and that was explicit in the words of the CoE marriage service. That was important for both the husband and the wife.
“First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.”