Just as fishing bait entice fish to bite the bait, clickbait titles entice people to click the title.
If a title is interesting enough to get lots of people to click on it, it is by definition clickbait.
Titles for interesting articles should themselves be interesting, as boring titles for interesting articles would increase one's chance of missing them.
An interesting title is only objectionable is the article itself is not worth reading.
But the reason we call it bait and not just "fish food" is that it is there to trick the fish into doing something it does not want to do. Something is not necessarily bait just because it's interesting or enticing.
But there is no term like "clickfood" which would imply that the title is interesting and the corresponding article is worth reading.
So people fixate on the title and call any interesting, well-written title "clickbait" regardless of whether the article itself is worth reading or not.
I'm simply pointing out that such an enticing title is not necessarily bad if the article itself is worth reading.
The alternative is a boring title, which is a disservice to any article worth reading.
Piquing your interest with the title is just good headline-writing. It only becomes clickbait when the title is a cynical perversion of the content.