I just mean that if you are reviewing over 5k lines of code, it suggests your PR is too big and should have been broken up into smaller changes.

It's not always code. I sometimes review things like translations that are often done in bulk (thousands of strings in a single batch). There's not much structure to it, it's not like reviewing some weird multi threaded super complicated algorithm, you just need to skim it quickly and make sure that the structure is not broken, and there are no screaming text blocks or unnecessary profanities.

Anyway, it did work properly, now it doesn't. The response shouldn't be "you're holding it wrong".

What about when you're renaming a widely used type in a large codebase or any of the many other things that it makes no sense to attempt to break up into small changes? I completely understand a preference for well-structured smaller changes, but the "large change = doing it wrong" zealotry is misguided.

I'm not always reviewing code. Sometimes I'm checking a diff between two versions of the code, which might contain multiple commits.

If someone is adding a 5k-line file, I would usually rather review it as a single chunk. And yes, sometimes a 5k-line file is entirely justified.