I agree with Chris H but artificial is a gender-neutral way of saying man made, equating to engineered - while man-made itself is meant to be gender-neutral.
Can we drop questions of man-made, human-made or the sense of mankind, not male person?
In the context of this Question, trying to differentiate between "human-made" and "man-made" says what, exactly?
Most of what it says is that we should ignore etymology and historical usage, and try to appease a few neologists by distorting the language. No! Never. Always and irretrievably appalling (IMHO).
If we need to go back to the roots of our language let's do that, and do it right now!
If anyone thinks we need to change the language to suit today's politics, why must "change" mean "distort"? Why not just "restore"?
Man once meant person and now does mean male person but why is that a reason to invent new terms? Why not resurrect the old meaning, rather as with Miss, Mrs, Ms?
Can we recognise wife isn’t opposed to husband; each is a contraction, one of wifman, one of husbandman?
Husbandman meant person who looks after (stuff) while wifman meant person who weaves.
See that person? How is that difficult?