The issue whether OP has copyright or other rights over the creation may be uncharted legal territory (i.e. mechanistic noncreative transformation isn't copyrig

The issue whether OP has copyright or other rights over the creation may be uncharted legal territory (i.e. mechanistic noncreative transformation isn't copyrightable, etc), however, the fact that a machine cannot hold copyright is clear law, and not only in USA - the law (and the Berne convention which is pretty much universally adopted worldwide, with local copyright laws aligned to it) protects the rights of people, giving authors (if they are people) certain material rights. These rights may get transferred to other entities like legal persons, however, even if you'd argue that a work was authored by a machine or an animal, so what? Unlike humans, the machine or an animal has no legal rights whatsoever by default other than what specific laws explicitly afford them (e.g. protections for animal welfare), copyright law doesn't do so, and copying works authored by a machine violates nobody's rights because the machine doesn't have any.