As a statistician, I have been in the situation where I was a co-author, and we submitted to a Q2 journal. The (clinical) reviewer asked we do stats atrocities, even though I explained to them why it is a bad idea (with references). The reviewer insisted (e.g. literally “please show me p-values for the normality tests”) without any rationale or counterarguments. I had to abide so as not to waste everybody’s time.
On the other hand, I have also been in the situation where authors reach out to me because their paper got major comments from the statistical reviewer of a Q1 journal. They had done bad statistical practice having not consulted a statistician in the design or analysis a priori.
I believe these anecdotes exemplify the good things a statistical reviewer would bring to the quality of papers in a journal.