Yeah, I don't see this as all that useful, either. It also still doesn't in any way advance discovering what process brought things into being, it only accepts that it happened, which everybody already accepted.
Constructor theory says, in short: "Yep. We can also accept the existence of space unicorns, for a physically possible definition thereof. Probably not on the far side of the moon though, since we've been there and would've seen them."
That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)
Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everything I described is long after the fact.
Constructor Theory: All things not explicitly forbidden by the laws of physics can exist. The answer to "Why does life exist?" is: "because the laws of physics do not explicitly prevent it."
Seems like an interesting take. I'm not convinced that it's at all useful, but it's not obviously flawed or vacuous.
Sidenote: I've never felt that the existence of life was as mystifying a physical problem as the existence of black holes, or expanding space time, or stars. Why people are mystified by life but blithely accept the existence of distant fusion reactors the size of our solar system is beyond me.