I hope you are right and I certainly agree that Russia has plenty of nuclear material available, so they don't need this plant. I guess it powers the Donbas, because it is still connected to the grid and being operated by its Ukrainian technicians.Too bad the IAEA is not more forthcoming. So here are my personal opinions. Opinions weigh much less than actual studies.
Zaporizhzhya includes a dry spent fuel storage area. Spent fuel can be used to make "dirty bombs". Dirty bombs can spread radiation across a wide area. An artillery shell hitting spent fuel is like a dirty bomb, but not as effective as a bomb which wraps radioactive material around a core explosive. An artillery shell may not even be capable to making a hole in a dry storage cask. So if you are thinking of a parallel to Chernobyl, no.
Russia has plenty of spent fuel available within Russia's own borders. If they want to make dirty bombs, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. They could then send those bombs all over Ukraine or even all over Europe with cruise missiles. If they want to blow up an operating nuclear plant, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. Most significant of all, Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads plus the means to deliver them.
So in terms of risks associated with Zaporizhzhya, I see nothing new, and nothing comparable with nuclear weapons.
What concerns me is that the plant is still running at least 1 reactor, possibly more, even as it is getting fortified as a bastion under attack. with the general in charge claiming the place has been mined. Assuming an effective Ukrainian counterattack, that could potentially get really ugly.