Reformat pull request template

[yaswant]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: NA
Code Reviewer: @andrewcoughtrie

The PR body was adding literal line breaks as specified in the template, which was not ideal. I have removed the 80-character markdown formatting restriction from the template to improve how it displays on GitHub PRs.

Code Quality Checklist

(Some checks are automatically carried out via the CI pipeline)

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's
  style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the
  readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings

Testing

NA

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Core rose-stem suite
• If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite
  using this branch
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and
  acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system
  tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource
  and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the
  developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource
  and complete in a matter of minutes)

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

NA

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable
  performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

NA

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance
  of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise,
  Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the
  Simulation Systems AI policy
  (including attribution labels)

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable