Love ya, Jim.
Okay, yeah, the "ludonarrative dissonance" argument is over-used, and like many such terms ends up being used less because the users have a firm grasp of what it means than because it's likely to engender head-nodding and winning of arguments.
That's not to say there isn't problems with the the violence in B:I, just that they don't necessarily conflict with the narrative.
Consider, though, that early on within Infinite it's explicitly stated that there are ways to avoid violence and that the player might be well advised to consider using them. After that one segment, it's back to area after area where you have to kill every single living soul before it's possible to proceed again.
Narrative dissonance this may not be, but it's still jarring.
Likewise, it's frustrating that the game clearly wants the player to find the violence horrifying- wants you, in a sense, to feel a sense of guilt for the violent acts that Booker commits- but never gives the player any other options (which is indeed arguably far more the point of the thing than the violence itself.)
It may not be exactly dissonance that the increasingly tender relationship between Booker and Elizabeth contrasts with the violence, but it's jarring in as much as it suggests the protagonist is capable of more than brutal violence and self-destruction- the linear dynamic of the game itself just makes any other manifestation of that nature impossible.
I think as more games include characters who could, conceivably, be more than killing machines, the constant reliance on violence as the primary focus of gameplay becomes increasingly tiresome. It's not ludonarrative dissonance, sure. But it's frustrating, stifling, lazy, limiting, deadening... We just need more terms to express that we're longing for something more.
