I've had 27 books traditionally pubbed. Last count I'd had something like 26 line editors (sometimes more than 1 on a book) and 21 copy editors on the first 25 of those books, caused by turnover. Same line editor and copy editor for the past 2 -- a true luxury. I've been on the other side, too. I edited for newspapers, including 20+ years at the Washington Post.
I greatly appreciate that an editor can give me what I can't give myself -- a cold read of the manuscript. That's invaluable.
An editor should not let her/himself think, "That's not how I would have written that." An editor needs to be a chameleon, slipping inside the feel and rhythm of each writer, each work. Then s/he can make the work stronger, rather than merely making it different. I've been fortunate to have a few of those among the many.
As a previous poster mentioned doing, I go through the edits in several passes -- knock off the easy ones where I goofed/I agree with the change (and thank you very much, editor!), 2nd pass to whittle down more, possibly another intermediate pass, until it's down to the ones that bug the heck out of me.
I find I have to do these passes in shortish shifts, because my resistance builds up as I go along. Especially if I'm hitting a fair number of different-not-stronger changes.
Do you often find yourself in these scenarios?
I have a book with a couple Irish characters. While in Ireland, I taped (with permission) conversations to guide me on cadence and word order. Then a copy editor assiduously Americanized every bit of their dialogue and POV. I was fortunate the line editor agreed with me. I was unfortunate in the number of times I had to write "stet for style."