When I am approving or rejecting edits made by others to posts made by others, I reject about two-thirds of them and only approve them if they are either absolutely necessary, or if correct a typo or formatting issue that is clearly inadvertent.
Editing for style is IMHO almost always ill advised, and when I edit, I am always a minimalist, not adding any unnecessary verbiage or changing the original in any way that is unnecessary. Editing stylistic points is much more irritating than any other kind of edit.
If a question is clear enough to understand well enough to edit without a comment, it almost never needs editing for clarity. If a question is unclear, usually a comment asking for clarification is better. We're in the business of communication, not polished publication of the Stack Exchange posts themselves. Editing is generally not justified by a desire to make the post itself beautiful in the eyes of the editor.
In this particular case, the edit had a sentence fragment that made no sense, changed a couple of preposition/linking words in a manner that were incorrect in usage, changed a consistent tense in the original to a mixed tense in the paragraph, added junk words, garbled the flow of ideas (because clauses in a complex sentence don't map sequentially to separate sentences) and left a writing style that sounded stiff and awkward. An edited post here conveys the impression (sometimes inaccurately) that the author wrote it and it is much less natural to see the edit history if you are just reading it, so that is not cool.
Any time you edit someone else's work, you have a much higher responsibility to be 100% correct than you do when writing or editing your own work. Having an unapproved edit made, when the edit contains an obvious mistake and some subtle mistakes of its own, is really irksome.
It probably did need to be broken out into more than one sentence, but because the edit contained multiple errors of its own, and overdid it in making stylistic changes, and disrupted the flow of ideas from their logical order in the original, it went too far and was not welcome.
I frequently have work edited in my day job, but then, 95% of the time, I agree that the changes are an improvement, and when they don't I am usually free not to accept them and take another approach. Significantly flawed, unapproved edits are extremely rare in my normal world.
If I'd know how to revert the edit at the time (I've now learned how, but the interface doesn't make it clear how to do it), I would have done so and then addressed the run on sentence or two. But, when there are a huge number of edits made, most of which you disagree with, it is a huge and time consuming pain to go back in and fix them.
I very nearly deleted the entire post, and I am half inclined to do so even now, because seeing what was done to the post so soured my enthusiasm for having anything to do with it, or even the entire forum, for that manner.
I don't have smoke blowing out my ears any more at this point and probably won't delete the post or the account.
But a failure to even acknowledge displeasure with the edit expressed in my comment with a "sorry" really aggravated the annoyance further.
Quite frankly, I don't know why the system doesn't give the author some kind of approval or reject option for at least a while, as it does when a person which insufficient rep does an edit that requires approval. This isn't Wikipedia where questions and answers are completely and entirely a group production.