It would be equally messed up if you switched the gender roles--saying "I'm going to do what I've decided is good for you instead of letting you make your own choices" always is, between two capable grownups. This just happens to be the direction which conforms to the popular trope about who is supposed to take care of whom.

This particular aspect may be unique to the romance genres my wife reads, but ISTM that the female leads in these novels are just as likely to make the same sort of imposingly-yet-self-sacrificing decisions for the male leads -- i.e., both parties doing it in the same novel, prior to reaching a saner equilibrium. The contextual implication I draw from the few ones that I read myself, is that:

1) The signal "I will do what it takes to protect you, even if you disagree" is covertly found attractive by the heroine, even when her rational/overt reaction is that it's stupid, unnecessary, condescending, chauvinistic etc. (This distinction is usually reflected in the heroine's inner and outer dialogs),

2) While the signal is valued, the actual behavior and effects are not -- by the time they reach "happily ever after", the hero grudgingly agrees to limit his heroic impulses to merely vigorously arguing and protesting against courses of action he deems too dangerous, rather than outright sabotage or quasi-suicidal pre-emptions.

Hypothesis: once the hero has established the credibility of his signaled concern by actually putting himself at risk, the heroine can simply enjoy the now-credible verbal signals, without having the ongoing cost of excessive risk to him, or the annoyance of being treated somewhat condescendingly.