So the sexist guy has an incorrect opinion on women in tech. He encounters one, who decides to play along with his stereotype rather than just be who she is. While it's not her responsibility to teach him not to be sexist, it's also specifically avoiding allowing him to see a positive role model. And all out of a vindictive power play. If he has 'already lost the interview', then there is no point in keeping up with the charade - you've already made your evaluation and now you're just being a cat playing with a mouse.
And at the end of the interview, we are left with a sexist man who has had his preconceived notions confirmed by encountering a female tech. That's something of an own-goal.
Wow, so Rachel encounters a sexist jerk, and then asks him a number of questions to let him hang himself, and it is Rachel who is the problem?
Given they have very few women interviewers, and the guy has to work in a team, any woman who has the unfortunate luck to work in the jerk's team is going to have their life made difficult. Rachel seems to have done a service to the company by flunking him, IMHO.
That's a good strawman fallacy you've got going there. It's pretty clear that I think the main problem is the sexist man.
Rachel didn't 'ask him a number of questions', she purposefully played the role of a ditzy, clueless airhead to play to his stereotypes rather than just ask the questions straight. Sure, it might feel good at the time and we can all laugh at the guy, ha ha, but what actually happened was the guy got reinforcement for his shitty behaviour. If the guy was giving weak answers, then being a straight interviewer isn't going to suddenly make him Einstein.
You're assuming there can only be one problem. Aside from being dishonest, carrying on a charade for an hour is a huge avoidable waste of time for everyone involved.
And at the end of the interview, we are left with a sexist man who has had his preconceived notions confirmed by encountering a female tech. That's something of an own-goal.