It sounds like it would help to change your perspective. The way I see editing is it's like an exchange: when I see mistakes in others' posts I fix them, and when people see mistakes in my posts they fix them. Nobody's perfect, but having others edit your posts might make you at least look closer to perfect ;)
I don't see it really being a big problem if these edits are being done quickly either (although I usually only edit posts that are at least 5 minutes old). Sometimes an early edit prevents downvotes and encourages upvotes.
If it's just a comment suggesting a change, the right action is to implement the fix, then flag as "no longer needed" so the comment is deleted. (If the comment was rude, then you could flag it as "unfriendly or unkind".)
On the other hand, if you see an inappropriate edit (e.g. switching the spelling between American and British spellings, switching brace style in code, edits accidentally that make the grammar worse), you should feel free to roll it back. If it's a suggested edit you can just reject it. (If there was anything good in the edit, the right action may be to just accept it and edit the parts you don't like, since it's often less work.)
Edits that are not just bad and are actually malicious (e.g. add spam or abusive language, either in the edit summary or in the edit itself) should be either:
- Rejected with the spam or vandalism reason (if a suggested edit). This reason triggers rate limits faster than the others, which is important when it's a spate of bad edits.
- Flagged (if it's not a suggested edit or a suggested edit was wrongfully approved). You can flag the post that was edited maliciously for moderator attention, making sure that you're clear on what the problem is.