$\color{brown}{\text{I was reading about}}$ the Mobius transformations $\mathcal{M}$ of the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H} := \{a + bi: b > 0\} \subset \mathbb{C}:= \mathbb{R}^2$ and its isometries in general. Let us assume we use the convention $a + bi := (a, b)$. To recall, the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}$ is a smooth manifold as it is an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$. So, it inherits the already existing smooth structure. We can indeed consider it as a Riemannian manifold by defining the Riemannian metric
$$\left<\xi_1, \xi_2\right>_z := \mathrm{Re}\left(\dfrac{\xi_1\overline{\xi_2}}{\mathrm{Im}(z)^2}\right).$$
Furthermore, if $\xi \in T_z\mathbb{H}$ as $T_z\mathbb{H} \cong \mathbb{C} = \mathbb{R}^2$, one can always go back and forth between $\xi$ being a tangent vector or just a complex number. Finally, a map $T:\mathbb{H}\rightarrow \mathbb{H}$ is called an isometry if for all $z \in \mathbb{H}$ and $\xi_1, \xi_2 \in T_z\mathbb{H} \cong \mathbb{C}$ provided that $\left<DT(z)\xi_1, DT(z)\xi_2\right>_{T(z)} = \left<\xi_1, \xi_2\right>_z$.
$\color{brown}{\text{As an example of isometries that don't belong to}\ \mathcal{M}}$, I saw $z\mapsto -\bar z$ and $z\mapsto \dfrac{-1}{z}$. However these maps are not complex differentiable. Shouldn't an isometry be a biholomorphism? Maybe what people expect from isometries are just diffeomorphisms? How can one show that these maps are isometries?
Update: After discussing with @coiso and @didier it seems that I had more or less the answer to showing that the inner product is preserved for the second map but had a few computational mistake.