As mentioned above, D.T. recognized that he may not have preserved error on his restitution challenge because his attorney agreed to the amount that was ordered-though we think the issue is really more a question of waiver rather than preservation of error. Compare State v. Von Stein, No. 02-0127, 2002 WL 31883038, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002) ("Although trial counsel did not object to the amount of restitution during the sentencing hearing, error was preserved on this issue because no objection is necessary to preserve the issue of sentencing irregularity for appeal."), with State v. Mischke, No. 19-1510, 2022 WL 246244, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022) (finding the defendant "waived her challenge to the causal connection between her criminal acts . . . and the restitution ordered" where she "largely gave up her challenges during her own testimony and in argument to the court"); see also Lajeunesse v. State, No. 21-0817, 2022 WL 1654831, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2022) ("[F]ailure to preserve error on a claim and waiver thereof are two different things."). To get past that problem, D.T. asked that the restitution "issue be preserved as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim."