Verbs can refer to many different kinds of concepts. The object of a verb, direct or indirect, does not have to be involved with or affected by an action.

Here is an example: "I hate zucchini noodles". This sentence describes how I feel *about* zucchini noodles. It could be true even if I have never interacted with zucchini noodles since I started hating them.

Another simple example is the verb "want": "I want that sandwich" describes my desire for the sandwich, not some action involving the sandwich.

Another example that is similar to yours, but that clearly involves a direct object is "I helped my parents make dinner by chopping vegetables." Here, the physical action that I am describing is chopping vegetables; "my parents", as the direct object of the verb *help,* refers to the *beneficiary* of my action. I could help my parents in this way without them being involved at all in my vegetable-chopping (e.g. maybe I do it while they're busy doing something else).

Some verbs allow *me* to be used the way you used it in your question, but others don't. The exact meaning of *me* will depend on the specific verb. Other verbs with similar semantics (because they refer at least in part to an action that can be taken in advance of the "intended" recipient actually receiving something) are *bake* (as in "I baked him a cake; it's in my car now") or *send* (as in "I sent them some postcards that should arrive next week").

As a side point, it is debated whether "me" in sentences like the one you describe should be called an "indirect object". This is a traditional term, but in English, "indirect objects" like this are very similar in many ways to "direct objects".