In English, we don't have to say "clothes"; it's understood from context.
In the UK we would say "I'm not changing in front of that boy" or "I'm not getting changed ..."
"I do not change" requires "clothes" to make sense.
Dead straight! What kind of dodgy work is this?
I'd be more inclined to say "get changed".
what does oltozom mean without the at-
To get dressed, with the at it is to change clothes
I am not changing in front of that boy.
That is what one would normally say, but it was not accepted.
So what does the "át" do? Does the sentence not work without it?
With just "öltözöm" it means "I put on my clothes" - you need the "át" to give the meaning to "change clothes".
So in one phrase "átöltözöm" means "change clothes" and now it means "change".
A little consistency would be helpful.
The English sentance needs the word "clothes" to make real sense.
"clothes" is optional. What are you doing? Changing. The "clothes" is understood. Also you have "Changing Rooms" - no mention of clothes.
For me, change does not involve clothes automatically. "Nem változom meg a fiú előtt", ez mi lenne angolul? I do not change in front of the boy.