My fairly old-school, de Beauvoirian feminist take on this:
Much of the concern over "male gaze" is that it objectifies women, and any objectification is taken by some to be irredeemable.
But this is obviously an oversimplification. Physical sexual interaction has a fundamental/inescapable element of objectification. Sex happens between two bodies, and the specific mechanical interactions between them are important.
There are all sorts of ways that sex can be abstracted and the more specific physical elements veiled, and all sorts of complicated and potentially rich cultural and emotional factors that may be related, but sexual attraction exerts a pull toward interacting with a body as an object.
There's nothing inherently "problematic" about this pull, its a biological endowment as a certain brand of chordate animal, and no amount of hand-wringing or self castigation can scrub this from the species.
Where we run into problems is in treating other people wholly as objects -- that is, denying that they are a subjective self with thoughts/feelings/goals/agency that are just as real, important, and unassailable as our own. When we let our desire to treat another as an object override our sense of their own valid agency, that's a problem. So if a man lets a woman's physical characteristics, and their specificity to his own interest in treating her as an object, rule his conception of her, yes, he's being sexist.
Does inviting "male gaze" in art automatically presuppose this type of sexism? I'd say not necessarily. Yes, presenting women as appealing visual objects may reinforce sexist habits of mind, and the ways in which women are used in media often do just this. But adults should be able to entertain multiple representations of an imaginary character that operate on multiple levels.
The cards in Witcher 1 would be, I think, a strong case of a fundamentally sexist approach to female representation. Although some of those characters are richly portrayed in the game, they are reduced to their physical affordances when rendered as sexual "collectibles."
But take Yennefer in W3. She is certainly inviting to the male gaze. But is her character reduced to just that, functionally? From her many roles in the world of the Witcher (friend, mother figure, romantic partner, political power broker, etc.) and the multiple ways these can play out, and from the subtle depictions of complex emotional ties between her and Geralt that may make her a sympathetic character wholly separate from her bust/hemline (consider the great discussion on the mountain-top boat), I'd argue that she is not reduced to a simply representational object. She invites consideration as a multidimensional agent in the fictional world in which she exists.
Could she do so without so flagrantly inviting the male gaze? Of course! And it would behoove the Witcher to include more female characters doing just that. But scrubbing all male-gaze inviting characters isn't clearly the answer to the problem of art reinforcing sexism. Are only physically unappealing women capable of agency? Obviously not. So, to the extent that art mirrors real life, it should be able to represent attractive and unattractive characters with equal depth and richness, and a reasonably thoughtful consumer of art should be able to engage with different layers of characterization in different ways irrespective of their friendliness to male gaze.
None of this is to say that many designers of consumer art don't go overboard in uncritically using male gaze bait to get attention/sales. This type of representation is potentially harmful on a societal level, both in driving male entitlement and in enforcing in women a false sense that their primary value is as visual object (as someone with a young daughter growing up in this bizarre and cruel world, I'm very sensitive to these issues). But including an overtly sexually attractive woman in a game does not presuppose sexism.