I think it depends on how you interpret how the feat works in-universe. Like, I imagine if you make a normal shot your character is aiming for a reliable target on the enemy’s body, whereas if you use an ‘all in’ shot they’re aiming for a vulnerable, but difficult to hit area of the body, like the face. The arrows aren’t hitting harder, you’re just hitting the foe where it hurts. Hence, sharpshooting. If you interpret ‘all in’ as your character shooting the arrow with greater velocity (not sure how they’d do that with a crossbow) then yeah, it doesn’t make sense.

Nov 17 what you're saying could accurately describe the mechanics and functionality of the feat in realistic terms...it is still however poorly named as 'Headshot ,''Headhunter,' or "Risky Shot" would still be more appropriate names for the feat.

From an online definition: A sharpshooter is a person who is highly skilled or consistently accurate in shooting a target with a gun or a weapon.

I'm glad we could engage in this pointless debate.

I mean, I interpreted this as more “casual discussion” than “pointless debate”. You gave a perspective and I added my two-cents to it. Hope it’s chill on your end. Anyway, I’d say those definitions of sharpshooter still apply to the feat. Being able to ignore high ground rules and hit the foe’s weakest areas would require the character to be “highly skilled”, and since they’re avoiding disadvantage from high ground, that would make them more “consistently accurate”. “Risky shot” would’ve worked for the togglable passive, but “all in” does a pretty good job of conveying the same message, I’d say.