The problem is what constitutes a "good gerrymander" from a "bad" one. Here's the current AL map (from Wikipedia, link-only due to keeping the original size). What you'll note is that the districts are rather oddly shaped as-is. Montgomery itself is carved into three congressional districts, and Birmingham into two. District 7 (which is predominantly black) is a D+20 district in an otherwise deeply Republican state (no other district is less than R+15).
In the redraw of the question, we see only District 3 get spared any major changes. But District 7 is carved up into 1, 4 and 6. There is a case to be made that such a map is designed to disenfranchise.
The US Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering challenges were off-limits for Federal courts
"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."
Roberts noted that excessive partisanship in the drawing of districts does lead to results that "reasonably seem unjust," but he said that does not mean it is the court's responsibility to find a solution.
You could challenge it in that state's courts. That's what happened in North Carolina
Three Superior Court judges overturned the state’s current political maps as unconstitutional on Tuesday. They had been drawn in 2017 to replace different maps the Republican-led legislature also drew, in 2011, after those had also been ruled unconstitutional. The ruling doesn’t affect the maps for North Carolina’s 13 U.S. House seats, which survived a separate legal challenge earlier this summer at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alabama's Supreme Court is elected and is entirely made up of Republicans. It seems unlikely they would overturn something enacted by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor.
The Department of Justice could possibly go at it from the angle of the Voting Rights Act
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a change affecting voting, such as a redistricting plan, may not be used by a covered jurisdiction unless that jurisdiction can show that the change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor will have a discriminatory effect. This can be done in one of two ways. The jurisdiction can file an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As an alternative, the change can be submitted to the Attorney General for administrative review.
It's unclear how successful that would be.