Finding a Nail to Hammer

There's a Venn diagram between "what I like", "what I'm good at", and "what earns money" wherein the overlap between all 3 categories should be where you qualify a career opportunity worthy of pursuit.
The trouble is that you typically try to make a decision on that as a teenager, well before you have much knowledge of the kind of things that earn money (aka legitimate problems and/or value propositions). Not only have you not experienced that much of adult society yet, but the landscape of jobs is constantly being redefined by new technology industries and supply chains.
Another common story is that of being nudged into a lucrative job role because it's related to something that you're good at and then you're expected to like it. How could you not like being paid well for something you're good at, right?

Change your attitude.

On the surface it seems like "things that I like" is the definition that is most within your control to change. After all, our tastes are in constant flux as reflected in the cultural trends and fashions of our peers. If you can bring yourself to like skinny jeans, surely you can get behind cranking out spreadsheets for a paycheck.
On the other hand, shouldn't your feelings about your profession endure longer than how you feel about your current wardrobe?
We should be talking about something deeper than "what I like...right now" - a more poetic spark that ignites a profound engagement with the activity and challenges at hand. The kind that can help you look past the challenges of your laziest days, or navigate the worst of your workmates character traits. Something that you can reflect on with a sense of pride or at least grim satisfaction.
And if we're talking about that level of depth, then we need probably more years and diverse experience to cultivate and recognise when we find an example. It's like hunting for hidden treasure where you try new things while listening for feedback of "hot or cold" to know if you're getting closer to the target.

Redefine what you're good at.

Of course you can, and will likely have to multiple times, retrain your skillset as part of the "things I'm good at" category. However, with the pace of change of technology, it's wiser to invest in the meta-skill of getting good at new things proactively. Otherwise you risk being dragged into the next industrial zeitgeist as a laggard, stressed and with less agency to choose your destiny. There's typically at least a time cost to retraining if not least an monetary cost. Does that outweigh the cost(s) of not switching though? Like cost on your personal sense of self-worth and freedom and fundamental belief in your ability to change and adapt and overcome new challenges.

"...people spend money they haven't earned to buy things they don't want..."

What earns money is largely linked to what people are willing to pay for. That's supposed to be a reflection of the magnitude of meaningful value being exchanged. So if there's money being made somewhere then it's gotta be linked to some vaguely virtuous exchange in goods and/or services. As long as it's not directly or actively making the world a worse place then that's where my purposefulness scrutiny typically ended for an opportunity at least being on the list for consideration.
You can be earning well because you're in a space where people are throwing a lot of money for your problem-solution fit. The trouble is that if you realise the problem itself is manufactured or essentially dumb then the rest of the whole setup along with your involvement in it feels like theatre.
There really can be smoke without fire. Or at least the fire might be for something that really should just burn to completion instead of needing water.
In short, you need to give a crap about the whole problem and value proposition not just whether it earns money. In classic form, it sounds so simple when articulated out loud, but I think it's only just starting to hit home. There's also a privilege to coming to that realisation firsthand because it means you made it to a point in the Venn diagram that's nearly in the middle sweet spot but not quite there.

Time for a tweak methinks.