I’m not seeing this as a big deal: certainly not for artworks by deceased artists where the “title” of the work is basically a nickname applied after the artist’s death. It wasn’t Leonardo who called the “Mona Lisa” by that name, for example, and it would not be usurping Leonardo’s “creative control” in any way if we started calling it, say, “Lady with a Smile” instead.
Likewise, should Manet’s “Le dejeuner sur l’herbe” be called “Le Bain” instead, since that was its original title? Titles of paintings are generally not considered an intrinsic part of the work the way the title of a literary work might be, and the artists themselves often changed their painting titles rather casually, or used some generic descriptor like “Portrait of a Man” or “River Landscape I”.
So I don’t think it’s really a problem if the Rijksmuseum is introducing alternate titles for artworks currently known by phrases like “Young Negro Girl” that are potentially off-putting to modern audiences. Of course, the relation between alternate titles and original titles should be made clear for identification purposes and for historical accuracy.
Furthermore, of course there’s nothing wrong with the museum modernizing their own official descriptions of the artwork in their collections, which I suspect is where the bulk of the changes are going to be made.
If a museum is officially changing a title that was deliberately chosen by a living artist to characterize something about their work that they considered meaningful, though, I’d have a problem with that.