The premise that getting rejected from a top conference is worth anything at all is ridiculous. To be rejected, all you need to do is submit something, even gibberish as @Allure’s answer suggests. This is no achievement whatsoever, and to submit something you think would definitely get rejected just so you can say you submitted to a top conference is an abuse of the academic publishing/conference system, and on top of that, one that doesn’t actually confer any advantage. It is only reasonable to submit to a top conference if you see a chance (even a small chance) of the work getting accepted.
One can debate whether the low-ranked conference you might consider submitting to instead of the top conference would help with your PhD applications — it is true that for certain predatory or junk conferences the opposite would be the case. But for a legitimate conference with real standards, even if they are not the highest you can find, getting your paper accepted there would count at least as a modest achievement.
One can also debate whether a small chance of getting accepted to a top conference is better than a higher chance of getting accepted at a not so well-ranked conference. Those types of questions definitely deserve careful consideration. But as I said, a rejection from a top conference is by itself worth nothing, and thus by definition is an inferior “achievement” to anything else whose value isn’t strictly negative.