I think there can be different in the definition of 'major' and 'minor' between you and the editor, and you could definitely express your opinion.

For example, you may think the number of items that required changes are large so it is 'major'. But the editor may thinks that overall the paper is methodologically sound, just need some edits, and changes on the interpretation of results. Therefore it is 'minor'.

I agree with Buffy that unless your comments are ignored, there are not much to concern.

I think there can be different in the definition of 'major' and 'minor' between you and the editor, and you could definitely express your opinion. As some fields had a tradition that minor revision may not send back to the reviewer again, you may even want to voice it out, if you really want to read the revision.

For example, you may think the number of items that required changes are large so it is 'major'. But the editor may think that overall the paper is methodologically sound, just need some edits, and changes on the interpretation of results. Therefore it is 'minor'.

I agree with Buffy that unless your comments are ignored, there are not much to concern.