In my mind: There is theory, there is practice, and there is practicality.
In theory: A management review is the place to motivate (to MWER) "changes" to a QMS.
In practice: MWER should probably only be notified about defects in the QMS, as they've presumably already taken responsibility for the existing QMS. Think: 'external audit finding'. There is obviously a spectrum of engagement between MWER and the QMS... I typically see "disengaged", but I have also seen examples of MWER with more 'concern'... including members of MWER that would be just as happy to scrap a QMS, as well as those who would like nothing more than to micromanage the most trivial of topics (e.g. the color of paper used in printers).
Practicality concerns: A management representative ought to (well, duh) represent to management the health of the QMS and at a high-level describe activities done in the QMS space since the last report... and be prepared to go into detail if/when asked. I don't think it would be practical to prepare to discuss the revision details of every work instruction and template that has changed in the most recent quarter... but an update on the status of any CA or NCR related to the QMS would probably be more cogent. Internal audit finding usually result in entries in the non-conformance and corrective action space, so inform MWER and let them make an assessment if they think there is a defect with the QMS.