I think that might be because male is so frequently treated as the "default" gender that you can easily swap in women to play the characters and it won't be too different, but female-centric narratives tend to emphasise gendered specifics to the point where you can't just straight-up rehash them with men. Maybe that's why nobody tries to do all-male remakes of female movies - because that would genuinely lose what makes those movies distinct whereas there are countless movies where the characters' (male) gender is purely incidental.
But where exactly do you draw the line between a story "naturally having women" and "going overboard"? In one sentence, you think it's "going overboard" to put women in powerful roles in order to make the audience think it's quote-unquote normal (your quotes, not mine), then in the next you say you have no problem with women taking these roles as long as it's done "organically" even though that appears to be a very nebulous standard (and, if you're going to provide examples of how you think it's forced, you should also provide examples of instances where you think it is "organic"). Using Last Jedi as your clearest example of forced diversity is questionable because there are only about half a dozen women of any major prominence in that narrative (which is more than balanced out by the male characters anyway).
Why?
I feel like this could use further elaboration, but I figured they all served their purposes within the narrative - Rose and Holdo are key foils for Finn and Poe respectively while Phasma always struck me as a flat character by design who Finn fights as part of his arc.
To answer your first part:
That is interesting that female-centric movies would be thought of as distinct. It does seem to be a bit of a one-way street with that though. Perhaps it's because, by and large, women
will watch action movies, spy movies (or some other normally male dominated movie) whether they are male or female dominated or both and of course men will too. But with female-centric movies, like something on Lifetime, by and large, men would rather chew broken glass then sit through that. I think that is why Jerry Macguire (1996) was such a big success because it was balanced blend of romance for the women and sports for the guys.
I do think there are distinct male-centric movies though. The Hunt for Red October (1990) is the first one that comes to mind. There are only two women with basically cameo roles throughout the whole movie. The movie wouldn't work or be realistic if most of the characters were swapped for women. But maybe there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction and/or time period piece?
Secondly, I'll try to further explain what I was meaning:
My idea of women being "forced" into a role is clearly like the Dr. Who franchise wanting to turn the doctor into a woman (without getting into the sci-fi of it all and his molecular structure of the doctor, etc.). The Doctor has been male for the last 50 some years. This is a clear example, to me, of turning the doctor into a woman just for the sake of doing it. I want to tell the writers, "It's OK for the role to remain a male." It will still be the same charming story as it always has been without doing a swap and the views and fan-base will still be forthcoming. In fact I think doing so disrupts that charm for no other reason than to satisfy filling that "void" that there should be a woman in that position. Further, you run the risk of losing your fan-base in the hope to recruit new fans. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
"Organically"
may not have been the right word, but to further convey my point, if Doctor Who, from its inception had always been a woman then I would think it should stay a woman. After 50 years to swap her out for a man would be doing the character a disservice.
If I were to continue using "organically" my clearest example would be
The Walking Dead. In there we have a mix of characters and no one cares whether male or female. We start off with a mixed cast. As the story progresses people die off and new people are introduced whether emerging from the woods, at a farmhouse, or on the side of the road, whatever. In this case we have an organically developing story and that
is part of the formula for
this particular story. Some of the men are tough like Grimes. Some of the women are tough like Michonne. And it's ok because that is what has come to be expected throughout the story line (sorry if you haven't seen the Walking Dead. I'm sure some other TV series would work as well).
To add to my Star Wars example: Star Wars (IV, V, VI), for the most part, it's been a normally male dominated show, aside from Leia, Mon Mothma, and later Amidalla in the prequels. Even though these movies were mainly male dominated, no one cared. The story resonated with both men and women alike. It was beyond popular. Star Wars defined a generation and has had a lasting impact throughout our culture. It was set apart from our reality here on Earth. It took us on a ride to another galaxy with its own story.
Contrast that with what's being dished out from Disney by injecting its modern day cultural sentiment and bias while trying to balance the character gender ratio so as to be fair throughout the story we know and love - it feels forced. It is the inverse of Star Wars influencing the culture. It is now the culture influencing Star Wars.