Issue:
Bug: [REFACTOR] remove redundant call to fetch payment method data



In case of `payments_start` operation, there is a call to fetch payment method data ( which makes a call to the locker to fetch payment method data ). This call is not necessary since we do not need payment method data in that flow. This would add additional latency to payments flow.

https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/fa392c40a86b2589a55c3adf1de5b862a544dbe9/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs#L237

Here the call to 
https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/fa392c40a86b2589a55c3adf1de5b862a544dbe9/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs#L246
Is not necessary and can be removed

Pull request description:
## Type of Change
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [ ] Bugfix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [x] Refactoring
- [ ] Dependency updates
- [ ] Documentation
- [ ] CI/CD

## Description
<!-- Describe your changes in detail -->
This pull request removes the unnecessary call to fetch payment method data in the payments_start operation of the PaymentStart implementation. The payment method data fetch adds additional latency to the payments flow without being required in this particular flow.
Fixes https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/issues/1327

### Additional Changes

- [ ] This PR modifies the API contract
- [ ] This PR modifies the database schema
- [ ] This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables

<!--
Provide links to the files with corresponding changes.

Following are the paths where you can find config files:
1. `config`
2. `crates/router/src/configs`
3. `loadtest/config`
-->


## Motivation and Context
<!--
Why is this change required? What problem does it solve?
If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here.

If you don't have an issue, we'd recommend starting with one first so the PR
can focus on the implementation (unless its an obvious bug or documentation fix
that will have little conversation).
-->


## How did you test it?
<!--
Did you write an integration/unit/API test to verify the code changes?
Or did you test this change manually (provide relevant screenshots)?
-->


## Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [x] I formatted the code `cargo +nightly fmt --all`
- [x] I addressed lints thrown by `cargo clippy`
- [ ] I reviewed submitted code
- [ ] I added unit tests for my changes where possible
- [ ] I added a [CHANGELOG](/CHANGELOG.md) entry if applicable


Testing:

Patch:
diff --git a/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs b/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs
index 5cd2d11c081..2e2904d9746 100644
--- a/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs
+++ b/crates/router/src/core/payments/operations/payment_start.rs
@@ -241,14 +241,14 @@ where
     #[instrument(skip_all)]
     async fn make_pm_data<'a>(
         &'a self,
-        state: &'a AppState,
-        payment_data: &mut PaymentData<F>,
+        _state: &'a AppState,
+        _payment_data: &mut PaymentData<F>,
         _storage_scheme: storage_enums::MerchantStorageScheme,
     ) -> RouterResult<(
         BoxedOperation<'a, F, api::PaymentsStartRequest>,
         Option<api::PaymentMethodData>,
     )> {
-        helpers::make_pm_data(Box::new(self), state, payment_data).await
+        Ok((Box::new(self), None))
     }
 
     async fn get_connector<'a>(