Agree with the others - there's nothing 'wrong' with it, it's just excess and not needed. If you have the money to afford excess, then it's up to you if that's the way you want to spend it. It's all a personal decision. Some people like to drive a BMW, even though a Toyota would get them around and handle their needs just as well - they have the money, and want the nicer car, even if they don't use 50% of the car's ability. Cameras are the same - some folks with disposable income might just get a 1D Mk IV, despite not knowing what half the buttons even do...your beach, your wave.
The main reason most advise on entry levels for beginners is because they can for the most part do everything the higher end cameras can do - including deliver excellent image quality, accept a full slate of lenses, and be a great learning tool for photography. The pro models just do it with better materials, sturdier build, weatherproofing, more direct controls, etc - just a bigger, more complex, and more controllable tool built to handle the volume of shooting and variety of conditions a pro typically faces, and the increased speed and specialty abilities to deal with very specific types of shooting.
Besides...the price difference is usually more than just a few hundred - some excellent entry level cameras can be found for $500-700 US, while semi-pro models are typically double to triple that number. And full-frame pro models are 5x or more that price.
I’ve also been stuck on the fps and the number of AF points because of the nature subjects. That’s why the upper cameras seemed so much more appealing.
As mentioned, AF points doesn't mean as much as folks think, unless you are a very advanced or specialty photographer with special needs. In fact, many wildlife and bird photographers prize spot focus far more than large AF grids. Continuous focus and large matrix grids of focus points are great for action sports, or for birds-in-flight against sky backgrounds...but even lesser focus points can still pull out semi-pro to consumer level needs (we're shooting sports of friends/relatives, or local bird wildlife, with 300mm lenses...professional sports photographers might be shooting 600mm to 1000mm lenses on Wimberley mounts on sidelines, closeup of professional athletes...two very different things). And again, spot focus is also a preferred method of many for birds in flight, especially when dealing with cluttered backgrounds that can confuse an AF system.
And for continuous shooting modes - most basic P&S cameras couldn't do better than 2-3 fps - and most consumers would never really need more - entry level DSLRs are usually 2-3 as well, but some can go faster for a very reasonable budget - like the 4.7 fps of the Pentax KX, the 5fps with special 7fps mode of the Sony A550 and 580, and the 10 fps of the Sony A33/55...all of those cameras under $800, and two of them for around $500.
I'd say base the decision on your wants vs your budget - and decide if you've got the spare cash lying around with nothing better to do with it and feel like getting a nicer body, even if you don't need it. Or, stick with the entry bodies and blow your spare wad on primo lenses. If budget's tight, then that alone should make the decision for you!
Sony DSLR-A68 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Tamron 150-600mm / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6300 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / FE70-200mm F4 G OSS / FE70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses