[DOC] Remove extra parameter in docstring with incorrect definition

[wayneadams]

Reference Issues/PRs

Doc change, no issue needed.

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

There are two optimizer's called out in the CNNClassifier class's docstring. One of them is incorrect and references keras.optimzer when it should be keras.optimizers.

This change removes the incorrect parameter in the docstring.

Does your contribution introduce a new dependency? If yes, which one?

No

What should a reviewer concentrate their feedback on?

• Double check the keras optimizers module here

Did you add any tests for the change?

No

Any other comments?

None

PR checklist

For all contributions

• I've added myself to the list of contributors with any new badges I've earned :-)
  How to: add yourself to the all-contributors file in the sktime root directory (not the CONTRIBUTORS.md). Common badges: code - fixing a bug, or adding code logic. doc - writing or improving documentation or docstrings. bug - reporting or diagnosing a bug (get this plus code if you also fixed the bug in the PR).maintenance - CI, test framework, release.
  See here for full badge reference
• Optionally, I've added myself and possibly others to the CODEOWNERS file - do this if you want to become the owner or maintainer of an estimator you added.
  See here for further details on the algorithm maintainer role.
• The PR title starts with either [ENH], [MNT], [DOC], or [BUG]. [BUG] - bugfix, [MNT] - CI, test framework, [ENH] - adding or improving code, [DOC] - writing or improving documentation or docstrings.

For new estimators

• I've added the estimator to the API reference - in docs/source/api_reference/taskname.rst, follow the pattern.
• I've added one or more illustrative usage examples to the docstring, in a pydocstyle compliant Examples section.
• If the estimator relies on a soft dependency, I've set the python_dependencies tag and ensured
  dependency isolation, see the estimator dependencies guide.

[achieveordie]

Nice catch! Could you please update the docstring to mention that the optimizer can alternatively also be a string?

[wayneadams]

Ah, disregard that re-review request. I'll ping again when new changes are pushed.

[fkiraly]

Thanks, good spot!

Approving on the basis that this is already an improvement, I would consider the "missing str option" separate, so it could go in this PR or in a separate PR.

[yarnabrina]

@wayneadams can you please resolve the conflict?