Hmm my opinion, as a parable:
One of the major mistakes of IBM was to charge microsoft per LoC so they purposely added more code than necessary damaging the product in the longterm because it made sense from an economic perspective.
So back to the nature of the problem: Some people like to commit 100 small commits others just 2 meaningful commits.
Some people measure by applied change others measure by the absence of needed change.
So what is more valuable? Someone who does a lot hence can make a lot of mistakes? or someone who thinks and does as little as possible hence has a lower probability to produce bugs?
Even there we have different dimensions between lazy, incompetent, motivation, thoughtful .... so the idea shouldn't be an arbitrary number as a measure of quality or output.
Personally I would go for 1 commit of the current state of the day. If I spent 8 hours planning and drawing there will be no commit.
The idea of measuring commits is like the idea of measuring LoC it measures throughput in a quantitative way.
That's all you get / do with this