Of course I would expect a "chemical emulation or decoding" to be needed for that approach as a minimium requirement as physical brains aren't in a vacuum and have all sorts of hormonal influnces. And emulation is tricky even when dealing with simpler things like computers or Hawking's Voice emulator where the original worked based upon the assumption of transistor noise.
Even if we could get every last neuron modeled accurately without the hormonal issues there would be major emotional differences from things like not having any fear or dopamine and a configuration that expects them.
And even furthermore, things like the microbiome's influence on the brain are not yet well understood.
By the time we have multi-centenarians there might be whole new types of dementia that could arise.
Perhaps a better question than (do we need AGI) might be, do we need to solve protein folding before we can make meaningful progress. ie should protein folding be considered an ancillary problem or a perquisite for other solutions that must developed on the technology stack to make progress in age research
If, as Thiel and others have pointed out, ingenuity is slowing down, then in order to solve aging it might be necessary to have AGI invent the things for us to solve aging.
Would be curious if someone was of the opinion that we can invent the tech to solving aging ourselves and what resources would be needed to do so or if that process requires AGI first due to the barriers of solving aging being too great for us considering the resources required.