Good Grief offered the proper explanation in answering your question.
When the FAA uses the word "rated", it does not refer to a specific type of aircraft, as "you're rated in the H-269". A rating is a class of aircraft within a category. On my Private (FAA) certificate, it shows Airplane-Single Engine Land and Rotorcraft-Helicopter. On the day when I passed my heli checkride, I was then legal to move from the R22 I trained in to a B407. Practically, it wouldn't happen because no 407 owner would loan me the ship, nor would an insurer cover me. But, the Helicopter rating authorizes it. There is also no distinction made for number of engines, unlike fixed-wing ops.
As GG explained, type ratings don't apply until aircraft weight of 12500 pounds (or turbojet-powered in the stuck-wing world). A helicopter CFI offering flight reviews for 206 and 22, in your example, wouldn't be type-rated in those aircraft because there is no type rating. He or she could conduct your flight review in the 269. However, if the CFI has no experience in that type, they very well may decline. I would think no instructor would be willing to give a flight review in a type where they aren't comfortable with doing autos, because they have no way to know if you're going to be competent at autos, either. Insurance might have a say in the matter, too.
As GG said, you could do a flight review in an R22, and you would be legal to fly the 269. Of course, if you'd never flown the 22, this would be rather pointless. You wouldn't be competent after an hour or two, and it wouldn't do anything to check your competence in the 269. Because I'm fixed and rotary, I would do my flight review in an R44, and it would cover me for both operations. Part 61 just says you must accomplish a flight review in an aircraft for which you are rated. There are FAA regs that apply to legality but not necessarily safety, like the currency vs. proficiency argument.
Note that the term Biennial Flight Review is not used now, merely Flight Review. In the case of a pilot like myself that might fly Robbies, we also must abide by SFAR Part 73, specifically written for Robinsons, which calls for a Flight Review in a Robbie on an annual basis.
Gordy mentioned Wings (a pilot proficiency program) would substitute for a flight review. It certainly should, as it is actual training, not just a review, and is far better at keeping up your skills. Note that your comment about an hour of ground and an hour of flight is merely guidance for the instructor, not a goal. They can choose more if you're not doing well. The CFI won't want to sign off on a pilot that is deficient enough to be unsafe. Lastly, earning a certificate or rating automatically resets the flight review clock.