I think both versions are bad, groanworthy, and against character.
A truly intelligent and independent woman would test her theory without putting herself in peril, and recklessly so, while at the same time willfully reducing herself to a damsel in distress.
Sounds nice in theory, but... how?
The only way to guarantee Superman's appearance is by putting a life in danger, and you wouldn't have wanted her to endanger someone else, would you? I don't think it makes sense to say she's reduced to a damsel in distress (i.e. an intrinsically passive and subordinate role) when she's making a deliberate, calculated choice to create a danger in order to take control of the situation and force a desired outcome.
Besides, it's been a fundamental character trait of Lois Lane for 74 years that she'll unthinkingly plunge headlong into danger to get a story. So this was perfectly in character, especially since she had deduced, correctly, that Clark was Superman and thus she was in no danger. Her only miscalculation was in underestimating Clark's ingenuity at hiding his identity -- and even so, in the Donner version, she wasn't fooled and continued to believe he was Superman, eventually tricking him into giving it away. The whole time, she was the one who took the initiative and had the edge. Unlike the Lester version, who was far more passive and easily fooled.