I do not see the benefit of using timesyncd over chrony. Arguably,
chrony is a much better implementation and having a consistent time
server choice across all variants makes life considerably easier for
integration and management.

?

Timesyncd has a smaller foot-print and lower resource requirements, is part of the system management framework ( already installed ) and serves I would say majority of usecases out there which makes it a better distribution default since today distributions need to cater the entire spectrum ( embedded,cloud, containers, servers, desktop etc. )  and I think you are mistaken if you think that chrony is being used across all variants in Fedora ( I suspect that is an exception rather than a rule these days ).

Given that a distribution that has a larger desktop user base than Fedora (  Ubuntu ) has had it as it's default for several years now ( since 16.04 ) I cant image why the workstation edition has to be some sort of odd child in this regard since last time I checked there was not a single application that came with it that required some sort of sub-microsecond accurate time to function correctly.

+ I would think that dropping a time snippets into /etc/systemd/timesyncd.conf.d/sample-ad.conf with something like

[Time]
NTP=DC1.samdom.example.com DC2.samdom.example.com
FallbackNTP=the.same.ntp-server.as.your.dc.points.to one-extra.ntp-server.as.your.dc.points.to

Or like so per network interface

[Network]
NTP=dc1.samdom.example.com
NTP=dc2.samdom.example.com

Would be a well received administration/infrastructure feature for the "enterprise" part of the workstation...

JB