I cause myself to choose to do A.  I am the efficient cause and choosing to do A is the effect, right?

The effect 'choosing to do A' isn't the same thing as 'bringing A into existence.' Bringing some physical thing or object into existence requires more than efficient causation.

That's fine.  Here's how it works.  I choose to do A.  That's efficient cause (me) by itself creating an effect (choosing to do A).  Choosing to do A interacts with my my brain to create electrical/chemical impulses that will, in a chain of causes, bring about A.  Choosing to do A is thus an efficient cause, but under your reasoning it is not the sole cause because the structure of the brain is such that it is capable of creating the impulses.  So the structure of the brain acts concurrently with my choosing to do A to produce a chain of causes that eventually leads to bringing about A.

On the theist view, God's willing the universe into existence was the immediate cause of the universe coming into existence. There were no immediate causes, which contradicts our understand of causality.

Under the above approach, God's will + God's power (energy) = creation of the universe.

Moreover, we can infer that those causes and conditions were distinct from one another. Why? Because in all cases of multiple-causation (which is every case) different causal entities are needed to produce an effect.

You have never responded to my point that QM suggests otherwise.

How does QM suggest otherwise? You didn't make your point clear.

I pointed you to two links.  I'll set out a pertinent passage from the second link:

Relinquishing classical thinking means giving up the principle of distinction conservation. This implies, first, that we can no longer assume given, invariant distinctions: a distinction made by one observer in one context may no longer be meaningful