Addendums just added that moderately refine the enumeration of (for example) all positive integer solutions to $(xyz) \leq 180$.
The positive integer solutions to $(xyz) \leq 180$ can be partitioned into the $180$ mutually exclusive sets $(xyz) = a$, where $a \in \{1,2,\dots, 180\}.$
Then, using the same method that you used in your query, you will examine each value of $a$ separately, examining its prime factorization. Although this approach dispenses with any attempt at elegance, the approach is certainly straightforward.
Addendum-1 : Overview
Additions to the answer are provided in sections, Addendum-1, Addendum-2, ... that discuss an alternative approach to the overall problem and then try to connect the two approaches.
The overall problem is:
Enumerate the number of positive integer solutions to $(xyz) \leq M \in \mathbb{Z^+}$.
Ideas to note:
Let $S_M$ denote the number of positive integer solutions to $(xyz) \leq M \in \mathbb{Z^+}$.
Let $T_M$ denote the number of positive integer solutions to $(xyz) = M \in \mathbb{Z^+}$. Then clearly, $T_M = [S_M - S_{(M-1)}].$
The ordered triple $(a,b,c)$ will be used to denote the solution $(x=a, y=b, z=c).$
When (for example) computing $T_{(179)}$ the solutions $(1,1,179), (1,179,1),$ and $(179,1,1)$ will not be considered distinct. To prevent overcounting, the constraint of $x \leq y \leq z$ will be enforced.
For $r \in \mathbb{R}, \lfloor r\rfloor$ will be used to denote the floor of $r$ (i.e. the largest integer $\leq r)$.
The alternative algorithm discards any ideas involving prime factorizations, and therefore supposedly renders the OP's analysis obselete. In fact, the tail end of these addendums will be a (possibly laughable) alternative approach to computing prime factorizations.
Addendum-2 : Computing $S_{(180)}$
I think that the clearest demonstration of the alternative approach is to begin with an example. Given the constraint that $x \leq y \leq z$, the first consideration is that
$$\left\lfloor \left(\frac{180}{1}\right)^{(1/3)} \right\rfloor = 5.\tag1$$
Therefore, $x$ must be an element in $\{1,2,3,4,5\}.$ As a further illustration of the algorithm, suppose that you are enumerating all positive integer solutions $(x,y,z)$ where $x=3$. Consider that
$$\left\lfloor \left(\frac{180}{3}\right)^{(1/2)} \right\rfloor = 7.\tag2$$
Therefore, when $x=3, y$ must be an element in $\{3,4,5,6,7\}.$ Continuing the illustration of the algorithm, suppose that you are enumerating all positive integer solutions $(x,y,z)$ where $x=3$ and $y=5$. Consider that
$$\left\lfloor \left(\frac{180}{3 \times 5}\right)^{(1/1)} \right\rfloor = 12.\tag3$$
Therefore, when $x=3$ and $y = 5,$ $z$ must be an element in $\{5,6,7, \cdots, 12\}.$ There are therefore $[(12 + 1) - 5] = 8$ distinct solutions associated with $x=3$ and $y=5$.
Let $f_k(M,a) : ~k,M,a \in \mathbb{Z^+}, ~a \leq M~$ denote :
$$\left\lfloor \left(\frac{M}{a}\right)^{(1/k)} \right\rfloor.$$
Then $$S_{(180)} = \sum_{x=1}^{f_3(180,1)}~
\sum_{y=x}^{f_2(180,x)}~
\sum_{z=y}^{f_1(180,[xy])}~\{1\} $$
$$=~ \sum_{x=1}^{f_3(180,1)}~
\sum_{y=x}^{f_2(180,x)}~\{1 + f_1(180,[xy]) - y\}.\tag4$$
Addendum-3 : Computing $S_{M}$
The analysis inherent in equations (1) through (4) of the previous section will be unchanged. Therefore:
$$S_{M} ~=~ \sum_{x=1}^{f_3(M,1)}~
\sum_{y=x}^{f_2(M,x)}~\{1 + f_1(M,[xy]) - y\}.\tag5$$
In the original answer, I speculated that employing a computer program on a PC to compute (for example) $S_{(100,000)}$ via prime factorizations should run okay. I now speculate that employing a computer program on a PC to compute (for example) $S_{1,000,000,000}$ via the alternative algorithm should also be okay.
Further, if $L$ is any random number such that
$(10)^{(9)} \leq L < (10)^{(10)}$, then using a PC to compute
$T_L = S_L - S_{L-1}$ should also be okay. It is unknown how large $L$ can be to allow $T_L$ to be readily computable on a modern super computer.
The remainder of the addendums discuss using the computation of $T_L$ to determine the prime factorization of $L$.
Addendum-4 : Using the enumeration of $T_{180}$ to compute the prime factorization of $(180)$.
In fact, $T_{180} = 20$, rather than $18$, as computed by the OP. This is explained as follows.
$180 = 2^2 \times 3^2 \times 5^1.$
Setting:
$X = 2^{x_1} \times 3^{x_2} \times 5^{x_3}$
$Y = 2^{y_1} \times 3^{y_2} \times 5^{y_3}$
$Z = 2^{z_1} \times 3^{z_2} \times 5^{z_3}$
and then using Stars and Bars analysis to compute the number of non-negative integer solutions to
$(x_1 + y_1 + z_1 = 2) ~: \binom{4}{2} = 6.$
$(x_2 + y_2 + z_2 = 2) ~: \binom{4}{2} = 6.$
$(x_3 + y_3 + z_3 = 1) ~: \binom{3}{1} = 3.$
Then the initial estimate of $T_{180}$ is $6 \times 6 \times 3 = 108.$
The second estimate of $T_{180}$ as $\frac{108}{3!} = 18$ is closer, but also wrong. This second estimate assumes that each solution generated by the previous paragraph occurs $(3!)$ times, among the solutions $(x,y,z)$. This is wrong, because $180$ is divisible by $4$ perfect squares, $\{1,4,9,36\}.$ Therefore, the initial estimate of 108 solutions must be partitioned into two groups:
The 12 solutions that constitute the 3 permutations each of $(1,1,180), (2,2,45), (3,3,20), (6,6,5)$ and the other 96 solutions. These other 96 solutions each involve 3 distinct factors which thus generates (3!) repetitions each.
Therefore, the correct enumeration is
$$\frac{96}{3!} + \frac{12}{3} = 20.$$
So the (?? laughable ??) question becomes : how can you use the computation of $T_{180} = 20$ to compute the prime factorization of $(180)$.
Suppose that $(180) = (p_1)^{a_1} \times (p_2)^{a_2} \times \cdots (p_r)^{a_r}$, where
$p_1, \cdots, p_r$ are distinct primes in ascending order and $a_1, \cdots, a_r \in \mathbb{Z^+}$.
Then you want to enumerate all distinct solutions $(X,Y,Z)$, where $(XYZ) = 180$, and
$X$ has form $p_1^{x_1} \times \cdots \times p_r^{x_r}$
$Y$ has form $p_1^{y_1} \times \cdots \times p_r^{y_r}$
$Z$ has form $p_1^{z_1} \times \cdots \times p_r^{z_r}.$
The first thing to do is compute the number of distinct solutions to
$$S_1 : x_1 + y_1 + z_1 = a_1 : \binom{a_1 + [3-1]}{3-1} = \binom{a_1 + 2}{2}$$
$$S_2 : x_2 + y_2 + z_2 = a_2 : \binom{a_2 + [3-1]}{3-1} = \binom{a_2 + 2}{2}$$
$$~~~\cdots~~~$$
$$S_r : x_r + y_r + z_r = a_r : \binom{a_r + [3-1]}{3-1} = \binom{a_r + 2}{2}.$$
Then, you must compute the number of solutions to $(xyz) = (180)$ where all three numbers are the same : $[0]$, and the number of solutions to $(xyz) = (180)$ where two of the three numbers are the same $[4]$.
Further, since $180 < (2 \times 3 \times 5 \times 7)$, you know immediately that $r < 4.$ Therefore, you have the following constraints:
- $r \in \{1,2,3\}.$
- $S_1 \times \cdots \times S_r = [(3!)d + (3)e]$ where $e = 4,$ and
$d + e = T_{180} = 20 \implies d = 16 \implies$
$(S_1 \times \cdots \times S_r) = [(3!)(16) + (3)(4) = 108].$
At this point, you are looking for no more than 3 factors $S_1, \cdots, S_r$ such that $S_1 \times \cdots \times S_r = 108$ and $S_1, \cdots, S_r$ are (not necessarily distinct) elements from
$$\left\{\binom{1 + 2}{2} = 3, \binom{2 + 2}{2} = 6, \binom{3 + 2}{2} = 10, \cdots\right\}.$$
Since the whole point of illustrating this section is to facilitate computing the prime factorization of $L$, for a very large $L$, when $T_L$ is known, this is a reasonable stopping point for this section.
Addendum-5 : Using the enumeration of $T_{L}$ to compute the prime factorization of $L$, for very large $L$.
This is a convenient place to emphasize that my understanding of Number Theory is at the undergraduate
level (e.g. my involvement with quadratic reciprocity has cobwebs on it), and (for example) I have zero knowledge of computer resources needed to compute all primes less than (large) $L$.
For all I know, all of the ideas that I will mention in this section have already been considered.
First of all, for large $n$,
$$n ~\text{is prime}~ \iff T_n = 1.$$
Next, instead of defining $S_n = $ the number of distinct positive integer solutions to $(xyz) \leq n$ you could define it to be ${}_3S_n$. Similarly, you could redefine $T_n$ as ${}_3T_n.$ This suggests (perhaps wrongly) that for (relevantly) large $L$, it might be both feasible and helpful to compute (for example)
$$\{{}_{(10)}T_L, {}_9T_L, \cdots {}_2T_L\}.$$
I have glossed over a point that may be critical:
for large $L$, for $n,m \in \{1,2,\cdots, 10\} ~: m \leq n,$ it is unclear how feasible it will be to compute how many (non-distinct) solutions to $(f_1 \times \cdots \times f_n) = L$ will have exactly $m$ identical factors.
