Of course, one has to convince oneself the Lean theorem is defined correctly, but it will be orders of magnitude shorter than the proof. (In this case, one would also need to assume that probability theory, random graphs, etc. are defined correctly, but one would generally be happy to leave this to others.)

i think there are a few reasons.

- lean proofs are hard, and a lot of the time there is so much mathematical machinery that folks are working on that you would need to not only prove your result, but also all of the machinery that your subfield it is built on. it would be infeasible for many authors to do all of this work (this might be a major part of multiple careers, and when there are 5 folks in your entire subfield, the payoff is not really worth it)

- human proofs are readable, and can illustrate concepts better than lean proofs. human proofs give insights into how to think about a type of problem, and this is often the most valuable part of a proof/result.

- lean proofs are often very difficult to read; while they give you a "verified" check mark, they do not necessarily improve the bounds of human understanding if that makes sense.