Did I completely misinterpret the end of the Brutalist?

I'm curious as to how everyone reacted to the end of the Brutalist?

Vague spoilers

When I first watched it I took Zsófia's speech at face value, that Tóth said what she said about life being about the destination, and personally, I loved it. I work professionally as an artist, and the idea that the end is what matters, not the process, is something I've felt for such a long time, but could never articulate. I don't really care how much suffering my life has, or how miserable the process of creation can be, because when I look at that final piece, it is all worth it. Hell that's how I feel about life in general. It is miserable most of the time for me, and I wonder why I even bother, but it's those rare moments when I finish something I am proud of that I am urged to go on.

That's kind of how I took the ending as a whole, we see Tóth suffer so much, taken to the lowest lows, and then this ending is total whiplash, saying everything works out in the end because he got to create. Never before has a movie made me so angry, so sympathetic to its main character, I expected to leave the theater enraged, but then due to those last few minutes, I left it elated. Tóth and his work will be remembered forever, and that's all the matters.

I also found this a really poignant metaphor for the immigration experience, how becoming a citizen of a new country, especially as a refugee, is full of such hardship, but it's that destination that matters in the end. My fiance had a similar read, that we are not our suffering (the journey), but rather the person we rise to be (the destination) and we shouldn't celebrate that suffering, but instead focus on the end product.

Anyways, I've been reading people's opinions on it online, and evidently a lot of people are having the exact opposite read of it. Zsófia is taking Tóth's agency and speaking for him, she literally says I speak for you, and boiling down his legacy to some pop psychology quote. The whole movie he is spoken for, and then in the very end, when he should be celebrated, he is once again spoken for. And like, yeah, that's a really good point that I can't argue with. And it does make sense with the film's more understandably dower tone. It is also more true to a lot of immigrant experiences where there isn't a happy ending. The person is just exploited by the system and never gets to achieve true agency, much less their dreams. Is this closer to what the director was trying to say?

I much prefer my version, in part because it is a light in a bleak time, but also as both an artist and part of a diaspora it really spoke to me, maybe more so than any other line. That said, while part of the reason I love movies is because they are so open to interpretation, I am concerned I completely missed the point. What do you all think?