I find it amusing that as a high rep user I can edit a post without asking for approval, but if I review an edit proposed by somebody else I can't approve it finally. It still needs approval from other readers. My most recent example was here where there was an edit to the body that should have been copied to the title but wasn't. I approved the edit, but wanted to fix the title. Unfortunately, the edit was still pending, so I couldn't fix the title. Should this be fixed?
I disagree that this is a bug, or even an issue.
The act of "reviewing" an edit is/can be much less time/effort consuming (if you catch my drift) than the act of making an actual edit. Approving an edit also gives +2 reputation to the user who proposed the edit.
The situations are clearly not symmetric.
Hence there exists additional check and balances (in addition to the two-user review system, also the occasional "test questions") to counteract gaming of the system.
Putting it bluntly: the system may trust you not to vandalise a post, but that doesn't mean that the system trusts you to be able to spot it when someone vandalised a post.
There is definitely a missing feature here. After a user has selected "approve", they should be able to change their mind and edit the post instead.
I will post this as a feature request.