Note that the meter is also basically 3 Paris feet, which comes out to about 0.97m (compared to 3 English feet, which is only around 0.91m). They weren't working in a vacuum to derive the most principled or cosmically beautiful unit length, just trying to find a way to define the unit they already used that wasn't "the length of this stick we have over here".
Yeah, because measuring the mean equatorial and longitudinal circumference of the Earth on a line passing through Paris is a pain in the ass.
The meter was also standardized at a weird golden period for units -- we had global trade and travel (and so it was getting inconvenient to have different standard unit length sticks in different countries, let alone cities), we had enough science to have the notion of basing it on physical constants instead of random sticks, but we also weren't yet in a world where precision mattered all that much. You could change the length of your units by 3% and it wouldn't really matter as much it would today, where every bolt and manufactured part would instantly become a nightmare.
It's kind of a shame, because now we could pick so much cooler definitions for our units, because our science is so much better. Take restandardizing the foot as 1 ns * c -- so much more elegant than the mean circumference of the Earth, or an ugly number of wavelengths of a caesium atom. But changing the foot by 1.5% -- half as much as the difference between the meter and 3 Paris feet -- would be devastating today in a way that it wasn't in 1800. Hell, it'd probably be easier to change the definition of a second than the definition of a foot.
