It seems to be a fairly common sentiment. Personally I think most of her subtypes are based on some legitimate observations of behavior in certain subtypes, but she stretches too hard to differentiate them by overemphasizing traits and behaviors that aren't really central to the subtype, and often misinterprets the motivations driving those behaviors. Because of this a lot of them are confusing, contradictory or even just plain inaccurate. I think even the most controversial descriptions have some grains of accuracy in a roundabout way, but it's hard to parse that when you're completely new to the enneagram.

I think what she tried to do with the subtype descriptions (making them highly specific profiles of character and behavior) is interesting and not totally without merit, but it's really a shame that they've become the most popular/accessible descriptions because it's responsible for a lot of confusion and mistypes. If you want a more accurate/encompassing picture of subtypes pretty much any other source is better