You are making a valid point about a problem that generally affects reproducibility.
Fastq-dump and SRA tools, in general, are an utterly misdesigned, nonsensical suite of programs that are the scourge of bioinformatics.
The simple act of downloading a files should not be this confusing, crytpic and require random binary programs where you can't even tell beforehand what is in each file.
In your case, after inspecting the output it looks like the two large files are the paired reads and their different size reflects their compression rate. It seems the second pair has data that compresses differently.
For what is worth, I get a different filesize when querying via Ensembl with bio:
bio search SRR17607594
prints:
[
{
"run_accession": "SRR17607594",
"sample_accession": "SAMN24891916",
"sample_alias": "CN25-T",
"sample_description": "Human sample from Homo sapiens",
"first_public": "2022-08-22",
"country": "",
"scientific_name": "Homo sapiens",
"fastq_bytes": "47696043951;33618545069",
"base_count": "163951599482",
"read_count": "542886091",
"library_name": "Single nuclei RNA-CN25-Tumor",
"library_strategy": "OTHER",
"library_source": "TRANSCRIPTOMIC SINGLE CELL",
"library_layout": "PAIRED",
"instrument_platform": "ILLUMINA",
"instrument_model": "Illumina HiSeq 4000",
"study_title": "Radial glial cell signatures with FGFR3 hypomethylation and overexpression characterize central neurocytoma",
"fastq_url": [
"https://ftp.sra.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/fastq/SRR176/094/SRR17607594/SRR17607594_1.fastq.gz",
"https://ftp.sra.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/fastq/SRR176/094/SRR17607594/SRR17607594_2.fastq.gz"
],
"info": "48 GB, 34 GB files; 542.9 million reads; 163951.6 million sequenced bases"
}
]