By “bad” reviews, I meant those that are short or unclear/uninformative, which is different/orthogonal from “negative” reviews which criticize or reject the work.
If a review is bad because it is too short, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I can write a correspondingly short portion of my rebuttal addressing that review, or even ignore it altogether.
If a review is bad because it is unclear, I can ask for clarification in the rebuttal, and make a few educated guesses about the exact questions or criticisms followed by my answers.
The last thing I would do is to complain about the bad reviews in the rebuttal, or (worse) contact the paper chairs/committee. These are like complaining about bad calls during a game. What would you expect the paper chairs/committee to do? Ask for an additional review or the bad reviewer to submit a better review? That would take time, and even if you receive an updated review, it might be too late for you to address it before the end of the rebuttal period.