I don't agree, but I can appreciate you saying that you don't like prequels as a concept. Too many people try to argue that Star Trek is somehow special and shouldn't have prequels, because reasons, or that this prequel is bad because x or y is "unnecessary". Of course, unless the original story was so bad that it didn't make sense to begin with, all prequels are unnecessary, but their point is to enrich the originals, not to complete or "fix" them. You think prequels don't work as a concept. That's fine. I happen to think this one successfully enriches the original material, as do many others.And too be honest I don't like prequels as a concept. I think its just creatively bankrupt to do prequels like this, especially when you have to dodge canonasteroids. Its why I am actually looking forward to the Picard series because it will be a proper sequel. Star Trek should always be moving forward in my opinion.
I would also say that there are obstacles to expanding on a story whether you choose a prequel or a sequel. For example, practically any sequel involving Cardassians now must address the fact that their homeworld was recently devastated. Half the regular characters that we already know must now be retired or doing something completely different that makes it harder to include them in stories. So in many cases a prequel gives more freedom. There are also a hundred "writing prompts" scattered throughout the franchise in the form of characters vaguely referencing past events that were never seen.