Investment depends on the real interest rate z=i−πe, while the LM curve is expressed in terms of the nominal interest rate i (money demand kY−li uses i, not z).
Since the LM curve is unchanged (fixed in (Y,i) space), for any given nominal rate i that clears the money market, a rise in expected inflation πe lowers the real rate z=i−πe at that same i. A lower real rate makes investment more attractive (recall I′(z)<0, so lower z means higher I), which shifts the IS curve to the right (more investment demand at any given i).
With IS shifting right and LM unchanged, the new intersection has a higher equilibrium Y (and typically also a higher nominal i, though Y is what's asked here).
Therefore, in the short run, equilibrium Y increases — answer (A). This is essentially the Mundell-Tobin effect operating through the goods market: higher expected inflation stimulates real investment demand by lowering the real cost of borrowing at a given nominal rate.
The trap: (C) Equilibrium Y remains unchanged.
Students who don't carefully track the distinction between the real rate (which drives investment, via z) and the nominal rate (which the LM curve is built on, via i) may assume 'the LM curve is unchanged, so nothing in the model has really changed' and default to 'equilibrium Y remains unchanged' — missing that the IS curve itself shifts even though LM does not, because IS depends on the real rate while LM is anchored to the nominal rate.