I second Kim's suggestion for the 80D. You can save some money by going with an older (60D, 70D) body, but the 80D is a significant upgrade, and worth the money if you (she?) can afford it. I'd pass on the 18-135 lens (any of them), though. Canon is currently kitting the 80D with the 18-55 STM (get this), and the 18-135 nano-USM (don't get this). The 18-55 is optically very good. The 18-135 nano-USM is slower focusing than the ring USM of better glass, and noisier than STM if you do video. Nano-USM is truly a technological answer to a question nobody was asking (When is Canon going to release a lens that focuses slower than USM, and is noisier than STM?).
Use the difference (18-55 vs 18-135) to pay for the 10-22. It is, IMHO, better glass than the 10-18 (I've had both). It is also faster, and covers a more useful zoom range.
This still leaves you (her?) without a long(er) lens. Consider the 55-250 STM. Optically, it is quite good, even if the focus is a bit slow. You can get better if you want to spend more. Any of the 70-200s (suggesting f/4L IS) is far and away better glass, and priced accordingly.
I'd also suggest the ef-s 60mm macro lens before the 100L for macro on a crop camera. At 100mm on an aps-c body, she won't get a plate of food in the frame while sitting at the table. The next table over, maybe. The 60 may even be overkill. You can do nice close-up work with a close-focusing lens like the 28 1.8, or 35 f/2 (either of them).