Dawkins compared “god hypothesis” and “multiverse hypothesis” in a manner that multiverse hypothesis may look “extravagant” by taking one “working universe” and an infinite multitude of universes which “do not work at all” or “do not work as ours” simply because known physical constants have different values there.
“God hypothesis” (when assuming only one “fine tuned universe”, when there was present an “agency” or act of a sentient being, acting purposely by “setting those constants”) is extravagant or even more extravagant when compared to Multiverse hypothesis.
Of course there is also third option when there is just one universe, and physical constants were not set by anyone.
It took me a while, but it appears that what REALLY annoys theists on Dawkins is his way of speech about nature - regardless if its his fascination of evolution, genetics or cosmology. He certainly speaks about those phenomenons in a way which is typical for a believer to speak about God, and “all his infinte archievements”.
They question how is it even possible he can get so excited about that (especially in case when the theist denies evolution or certain cosmological theories), and then get angry for using rhetoric and variant of speech which is “reserved for God only”.