The wizard itself doesn't determine if the output is covered by a license. The input determines copyright law and FLOSS licensing. For example, if you import a nondescript WSDL into Eclipse to generate a client, that client isn't subject to the Eclipse license or even copyright law (by itself). The entire work resulting from the use of that client could be licensed any way the developers see fit. Contrariwise, if you imported Eclipse's source code into Eclipse and compiled it, it would be subject to Eclipse's license, even if you modified it slightly.
However, you might be able to import just a single file from Eclipse, if that file offered obvious functionality and was an insignificant portion of the software, without tainting the entire project with the Eclipse license (but, most people avoid that argument either way by simply not copying any source files from software with a license incompatible to their own).
Since most wizards require user input and various actions to generate output, unless the input was licensed by a particular model, the output is subject to ordinary copyright law, which would generally either mean that the person that generated the code would own it, or the code can't be copyrighted, either because it doesn't meet the requirements for originality or triviality.
If this were not true, all FLOSS software would be in trouble. In order to create a project in Eclipse, you use a wizard. By default, simply using the software basically requires the use of a wizard, so all the output of Eclipse would automatically be subject to Eclipse's licensing.
Clearly this isn't true, because either there'd be a lot more FLOSS software bearing Eclipse licencing, or Eclipse would cease to be viable for any developer unless they explicitly were okay with Eclipse's licensing model, which would basically mean that it would be useless for developing any other type of software. Simply using a program to generate a particular output does not automatically make that output assume a certain license.