I think it's inappropriate for the purpose. As pointed out earlier up thread, it's conceptual art. In a gallery, with an accompanying text on the artist's vision of everywoman and Mary Wollstonecraft, I'd nod and try to look appropriately cultured and appreciative like it. It looks rather decorative in the photo of it in situ, too.
But it's not a gallery piece. It's a commemorative piece of public art commissioned to memorialise a particular historical figure, using money raised for the purpose, from members of the public. You have to keep in line with their expectations, even if art critics think portrait statuary is overdone and clichéd.
If I'd donated to the fund, I'd be most unimpressed.
I found this thread in defence of the statue from which maybe indicates where and how the committee went wrong.
twitter.com/FernRiddell/status/1326089371590799361?s=19