I teach such a course, and we don't have that. First, students must work on an existing issue of the project they choose and are only allowed (for my course) to submit an issue or a PR non related to an existing issue if they have already finished a first contribution that have been merged by the maintainers into to same project. The course grade is based on multiple factor and the code of the contribution itself is far from being the most important. The most important aspects are communication with the developers (and being respectful and polite certainly is significant) and the ability to identify and then respect the (often implicit) conventions of the project, as well as the proper use of the forge workflow for submitting a PR (fork, clone, branch, PR, discuss, etc.). Getting the contribution actually merged into the project is a neat bonus on the grade but is not required to pass the course.

Also, I totally ban using LLM, and unmotivated students often choose to work on very simple issues like easy refactoring or cosmetic aspects of web projects. It's okay with me for two reasons: first because it filters out unmotivated students from working of important issues and giving useless review work to open source maintainers, but also because we have all the other courses to do complex projects, here the point is to teach them by practice the workflow of contributing to an actual project, discussing with actual people, etc.

For some students it's already a good thing to have been able to get a copy of the latest development version of a given project, to install all of its development dependencies and tools, to compile it, and to reproduce the bug they chose to work on. It's not enough to pass the course, but it's a necessary first step to contribute to any project and it's quite a different experience from what they're used to with small school projects that are designed for teaching or that they entirely wrote themselves.