The words "good" and "webflow" do not even belong in the same huffing sentence give the incompetent trash it -- like all WYSIWYG editors -- vomits up and has the unmitigated GALL to call HTML.
A numbered heading is a "heading"? Whoddathunkit?!? Oh yeah, that warrants a classs.
Of course someone deluded into thinking this trash is even worth using creating a default style that mindlessly repeats itself, doesn't use condensed properties, and then pisses on usability and accessibility by declaring font sizes, margins, and padding in pixels? No surprises here.
Hence I bet dimes to dollars every site you build with webflow even with your "not trusting" what the drag and drop does is still two to ten times the HTML and CSS needed to do the job, and is a giant middle finger to usability and accessibility.
FrontPage, Dreamweaver, webflow, I've NEVER seen tools like these produce websites that were worth a damn. Universally the CONCEPT of drag and drop "design' isn't design because you're starting with appearance first. Utterly back-assward.
Your starting point should be content or a reasonable facsimile of future content. You then mark it up semantically to say grammatically and structurally what things ARE, not what you want them to look like. That way non-screen media UA's -- like screen readers (software to read the page aloud), braille readers, and of course search engines -- have something meaningful to work with.
Only then do you add your non-semantic containers like DIV and SPAN as well as your classes to apply style AS NEEDED for each media target you plan to support in turn.
Content dictates markup, content + markup dictates layout. NOT the other way around.
Much like all the derpy front-end "Frameworks" out there like bootcrap, tailwind, w3.css, etc, if you're going to start with presentation you might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 with all those tables for layout, font/center tags, and align/border attributes everyone so clearly seems to miss.