Artificial surrogacy and "designer children" are two different, somewhat orthogonal concerns. Most IVF today involves no genetics modification. It's always been a slippery slope argument that surrogacy "inevitably" leads to genetically designing children.
Artificial wombs would certainly change the economics of surrogacy, but it's also a bit of a slippery slope to think it would commoditize it. It doesn't change most of what we know about IVF and likely keeps the same (relatively high) costs, it maybe just disrupts the labor market for surrogacy. (Which today from what I hear is an extremely expensive market prone to shortages.)
Artificial wombs would certainly change the economics of surrogacy, but it's also a bit of a slippery slope to think it would commoditize it. It doesn't change most of what we know about IVF and likely keeps the same (relatively high) costs, it maybe just disrupts the labor market for surrogacy. (Which today from what I hear is an extremely expensive market prone to shortages.)