There are already civil and criminal laws against the creation, distribution, and/or possession of some of these images in some jurisdictions, and in some cases the only defences are "as part of a criminal investigation" or "it didn't happen".
An interesting aside: If Grok is prompted to created the image, are both the person instructing it and Grok co-conspirators[*]? Grok originated the image and is both creator or possessor. The person instructing Grok has it delivered to their phone/laptop and so is also a possessor. But because the data is sent in ram form and only assembled into an image when it arrives on their device, did they also create the image? ISTR in UK law the person converting the data into the image can be deemed "creating" the image although I'm not aware this has been tested in court yet.
* Conspiracy is a good catch-all with excellent jury prospects of conviction because "conspiracy" sounds more scary and only requires proof that two or more parties made plans to commit a crime. Asking Grok to commit an illegal act and then Grok carrying it out and delivering the goods sound like conspiracy and the act to me ;-)