Seems to be some confusion as to the nature of the change management animal. The brief is, simply put, that the senior managers perform a strategic review and decided this, that or the other needs changing in order to get from where they are, to where they wish to be. In order to ensure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, change management continually evaluates the process and make sure everything is aligned with the new direction.
So far, so good.
However, being an ambitious lot given ever wider merit, change management has a tendency to morph into an entity going around looking for things to change. It's not the really important bits, like which product to produced and how to get about transitioning the company - they spend most of their time messing around with present workflows, procedures and processes, usually with no other aim that cost cutting. And if they're not busy doing that, they try to invent a crystal ball telling which department(s) to go about changing next. This is where the deep resentment from the rank and files come from; they don't usually offer anything of value as far as the future of the company is concerned, rather they faff about changing existing procedures to match the clap trap they've been taught in business schools.