"Approve with suggestions" is a leadership failure. Pushing unstable commits is a lazy, trash practice. I don't want to get too philosophical, but we want to avoid introducing unnecessary entropy into the system (codebase). This practice introduces a bad state in the git history (they should ideally all be healthy states), and creates 2 change states when a little effort could have resulted in 1.

A culture in which senior devs feel that they don't have time to review PRs is a leadership failure, and an immature attitude on the part of the devs. The more senior that a dev is, the more this is their responsibility. It's part of their job. It's leadership's job to create a quality-oriented culture.

The goal should always be to ship quality product, and peer review is essential to that. That does need to be tempered by the need to support business goals in a competitive marketplace, but ship first, fix later is a "break glass in case of emergency" tactic, not an operational strategy.