100F was originally set to roughly human body temperature. 0 was the freezing point of a brine mixture (water, salt, and ammonium) meant to be similar to sea water. It was used because the temperature would self-stabilize at a particular temperature, which was defined as 0 degrees.
That’s why its “humanistic,” the scale roughly includes the temperature range we can survive in, and provides decent granularity within that range. Metric based everything on pure water, which is pretty arbitrary also, as evidenced by both scales being redefined as more precise and repeatable means of defining measured units have become available.
It isn’t just about intuition as randomly judged by how you or anyone else feels about it. Humans do a lot of things on 0 to 100 and 0 to 10 scales. Literally the basis of the metric system. But all measurements are arbitrary comparisons to some target object: “the meter”.
So a temperature scale that closely aligns the 0 to 100 scale to the minimum and maximum commonly experienced surface temperature of the planet we live on is going to feel more natural to use than one which aligns to the boiling point of water, something we don’t usually encounter in nature.
Now we do encounter boiling liquids, and hotter, in labs and in kitchens, which is why C probably feels natural to scientists and people who cook a lot.
But the resolution of it isn’t particularly intuitive. What does 1\100th of the aggregate temperature of boiling water have to do with anything? Why a linear scale? It takes more energy to add 1°C of heat to an ice cube than to the equivalent amount of 20°C (“room temperature”) water.
Measurements are about both precision and repeatability, but also about conveying information in an easily understandable way. Sometimes those goals conflict, particularly when a scale of measurement is used in both informal and formal settings.