Good vis in howling winds and I fly the aircraft to about 500 ft where the F/O takes over to land
Monitored approaches: I knew of these, but was flying for an airline (B737 family) where they were not in use. F/O was PF single channel ILS. Procedure was for PM to search for lights <500'. At +100 nothing seen, nothing said; at "minimums" PF looked up, sawing nothing and went around. However, as PM, I had been looking out all the time and seen the whole situation. Our 2nd approach was a briefed monitored approach, like our LVO ILS, except a man land by me. It worked a treat.
Many years later, for various reasons, but primarily a safety & success aspect, the monitored approach for precision & NPA's was introduced; but with bad weather parameters. i.e. only when necessary due weather. In that case PF would use AP. It was very relaxed, more so than the previous PF all the way to landing in limiting weather technique. The head-down to head up close to the ground can cause some delay in 'deciding'.
Using a monitored approach for all approaches seems over kill, and especially in the scenario quoted; last minute switch for PF in strong winds. In a couple of runway excursions, in strong x-winds & gusts, one of the contributory factors in the accident report was that PF disconnected the AP too late in the approach; they were not feeling the air during the approach, and how the a/c was behaving came as a surprise too late it be in tune with the environment.
One size fits all may not be the best.