Doing the least amount of work possible is a good goal for a programmer. That's why we use computers instead of sorting bits of paper by hand.
However, there's something a little less than appealing about the way you put this, and I can see why baavgai reacts the way he does - I had the same revulsion. I don't hire people to write programs, but if I were hiring I wouldn't want someone who prioritizes "doing the least they can get away with for the most money".
I'd be interested in getting someone who wanted to get the most done in the most efficient way possible, that would be okay. Or maybe the person who's interested in working on the most interesting problems possible, if I had problems that were interesting enough to keep them occupied. But if you come into an interview saying you want "the least amount of work humanly possible for the most amount of money" you'd better have a damned good punchline, or we're done right there.