Air carrier pilot reported a GPWS obstacle warning on the RNAV 36 approach to BHM. The aircraft was on the charted descent profile and continued the approach.

Narrative

BHM daytime VFR/VMC RNAV 36 approach was executed with a stabilized approach and according to the charted descent profile when a GPWS obstacle" caution was activated. The Captain was the Pilot Flying during the whole flight properly arrested the descent rate. The crew was in VMC conditions for the entire approach; and visual contact with terrain and obstacles was maintained at all times. The GPWS caution was triggered inside of the charted FAF with a stabilized descent of around 700 FPM. Leading up to the GPWS; the CA/PF requested that I carefully monitor the altitude inside of the FAF to ensure that the airplane was on the correct profile using various resources. The airplane was at no point in time below the charted profile; and at no point did the airplane go below the snowflake and/or any of the altitudes in the "recommended altitudes" box published on the approach chart. In accordance with company procedures; the crew determined that it was safe to continue after having arrested the descent rate when the GPWS caution occurred.Upon termination of the flight; the crew verified that other crews; one of them being another company aircraft; had experienced the same GPWS caution despite flying the approach as charted. There were no company specific notes restricting flying the BHM RNAV 36 approach. I believe more research on this specific instrument approach by the company is warranted; as the approach was seemingly flown to the charted profile. The company technique was briefed and used properly. A stabilized approach was undoubtedly established in accordance with company policies; procedures; and rules. I would suggest that the company research this instrument approach so hopefully the pilot community can gain knowledge as to why flying this specific approach as published would cause a GPWS caution event."