She doesn't have no gamerscore, she has like 1200 because her account was set up like a month ago and she has some token achievements she probably didn't earn.
It's not about the amount or how much. Phil Spencer had a lot because he was a gamer and an exec. He was one of us, more or less, he played games and he liked working in gaming. I don't agree with all of his gaming opinions (in fact, mine are fairly uncommon, so that just comes with the territory).
I have a pretty high amount just because I've been gaming since before most people here were born. So I've had an Xbox account for something like 20 years. I've only really gone after a few achievements. Mostly I just play. Over time, that builds up. I've worked longer hours than a lot of people, in jobs most people are too good to do. "Work hard, play hard" may be a cliche, but I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't do recreational drugs, and I don't engage in extramarital affairs. I'm not a woodworker or a gearhead — gaming is my hobby. It's what I do to relax at the end of the day, if I have time. If I don't have time for a more "serious" game on the Xbox, I fire up my Switch and dick around on my Animal Crossing island. I've already rolled the credits (several times, long story, AC fans get it) but it's somehow fun to just run around and talk to animals and catch bugs and shit. Either way, it's what I do and I've been doing it for a long time.
I just think someone who's been playing games for years would make a better executive of a company's gaming division than someone who's never picked up a controller. LOTS of people play games. If someone never games, that says to me they don't like gaming — and they possibly don't like gamers. It's not a good look. Especially juxtaposed with the rise in AI and Microsoft bringing an AI exec in to run Xbox. It's not a good look at all.
Yeah, it's not so much gamerscore as it's gamer history. So if you look at my gamerscore, the actual number of points doesn't really matter, but you can see I've been gaming on Xbox for like 20 years, I've played so many games, you can judge me as a gamer based on what I've played and how far I got. It's not fair to mistreat a person based on gaming preferences, I'm just saying you get a clearer picture. So on mine you'd see a lot of RPGs, action/adventure games, point and click adventures (Dontnod/Telltale stuff), and Metroidvanias. You wouldn't see many sports games, racing games, or simulation games, and that would tell you things about me as a gamer.
Of course, I'd been playing video games for about 20-25 years before I ever heard the name "Xbox," but that's not tracked.
We could get into how achievements are just a stupid collectible for gamers, but are used by Microsoft to monetize anonymized gaming metrics to inform publishers how their games are played. Not all of them care, and this service is part of what Microsoft charges ~30% for, it's not an extra service. Some do, and most famously to my knowledge, it's why you didn't get an evil path in Fallout 4, because an overwhelming majority of Fallout 3 players went for the good karma achievements. Fallout 3 gave you achievements at levels 8, 16, 24, and 30 (the cap), but it also noted your karma level (good, neutral, or evil). And at each level it was like a stupidly overwhelming win for good, so they assumed most players didn't want the evil option. I mean, they did give you a couple evil factions to work with (the Institute if you were scientifically evil, and the Brotherhood of Steel if you were militarily evil), but ultimately your character is a good person.