I don’t agree with this definition of counterpoint

“In music theory, counterpoint is the relationship of two or more simultaneous musical lines (also called voices) that are harmonically interdependent yet independent in rhythm and melodic contour.”

So basically every arrangement in the world is counterpoint . Even an arpeggiated chord is counterpoint against a vocal line. A bass line? same thing. Even block chords to some extent.

when you create an arrangement every voice is harmonically interdependent with others and has his own rhythm and melody ( even if it s a simple one ).

I think this definition is ok if we consider counterpoint not a style, but more like a tool in our music arsenal.

If I have to tell someone my definition of counterpoint ( in a more classical way) I would stress on the fact that the voices are all of equal importance and ,in order to achieve that, contrary motion is recommended most of the time.

of course it depends on how narrow your definition of counterpoint is.
as a style ( like the one used by Bach) I would definitely add to the definition that voices have to be of equal importance.

as a composing and arranging tool , that definition is ok to me, because it allows you to use some contrapuntal devices such as contrary motion even in a homophonic texture.

Am I wrong?