This is the catch: you're not naming a baby: you're naming a person; they just so happen to be a baby at the beginning when you're enjoying an early appreciation for the mel lif lu ous ness of the name ... but they're going to be an adult the vast majority of their life. Ergo, that ought to be the usage parents plan for, rather than some cute, endearing name "fitting" for an infant (for some definition of fitting).
In most cases where babies get a "cutesy" name, hopefully the parents have the self-awareness to give them the corresponding adult version as their legal name, or at least a reasonable alternative as a middle name— both give the person easier options if they want to change it up during life transitions like entering high school or going away to university.
For example, Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter is Apple Blythe Alison Martin, and she's stuck with it, being Apple Martin professionally— but it's good she had the off-ramp to be the much more conventional Blythe or Alison if she'd wanted it.
I think in the case of female names there’s so much cyclic effect to it that it’s really hard to say. I could just as easily imagine a few decades ago people saying the same thing about Melissa, Jessica, Amanda, Jennifer, Lauren, Ashley, and all the other names that were super trendy for millennial girls.
Now Ashley is 35 and pushing little Kaylee in the pram, or maybe she’s a business executive — either way, our perception has shifted that “Ashley” is now a woman not a girl. Just like how Gertrude, Beatrice, and Florence are more likely to be playing dolls at the park than bridge at the nursing home.
