What?? Oftentimes, the director will be very hands on editing the film. The editor doesn't translate his idea of the film for the director to OK. The director gets the fat check because they decide how the film will be shot AND edited. The editor(s) then follow the direction. I can't think of a single movie where the editor chooses how the film is made/compiled where the director then just signs off on. Whatever... Think what you want
Do you even know how a movie is shot?
The director has a vision of the script, the cinematographer basically shoots this vision.
Director: Can we get this shot?
Cinematographer: Yeah lets give it a go.
These form what's called rushes. So for one scene, lets say Pepper and Tony talking in the garage, you will have a number of rushes - for example.
Mid shot favouring Tony
MS favouring Pepper
WS favouring Tony
WS favouring Pepper
WS Pepper and Tony
Master
blah blah blah
Each shot consists of the whole scene, not just a portion (sometimes a portion if time is tight or only one part is crap).
These rushes are given to the editor who then edits these rushes so we get the typical shot/reverse shot we always see in movies, these are the kinds of thing that the director doesn't really get involved in because it's the basics. As I mentioned once they get to the beats that progress the story the directors role in editing becomes a bit more crucial as they have the final say in whether or not it matches up to their original vision. To which the editor can go, 'I think this works better' as that is what the editor is paid for.
You're being to far to simplistic, an editor doesn't compile a film, they edit it from the rushes which are shot by the director. They effectively match up the rushes to the script.
However nowadays everyone can do everything in the industry which is why you'll find directors writing and working on camera and editing the film, mainly because it saves studios money to hire 1 person for 3 jobs rather than 3 people for 3 jobs.