Is this a reasonable case to ask for co-first authorship on a review paper?

I'm looking for some outside perspective on an authorship situation for a review paper.

There are two main contributors. We come from different sides of the department and bring complementary expertise, so we've each been responsible for different aspects of the review.

I would estimate that the written contribution is roughly 60/40, with the other author writing about 60% and me about 40%. Beyond writing, I created the graphical abstract, prepared multiple tables, developed the initial version of one of the main figures (which was later substantially revised), and generally took the initiative in moving parts of the project forward. I genuinely feel that the paper wouldn't stand in its current form without my contributions.

The other author has written more overall and has been leading the development of what is probably the central conceptual framework of the paper—the main takeaway of the review. I had originally developed an early version of that framework, but it was ultimately replaced, which I'm completely fine with.

This has left me wondering whether not contributing to the final conceptual framework makes co-first authorship unreasonable, even if my overall contribution has been substantial.

I'm hesitant to bring it up because we haven't worked particularly well together, and I expect there will be pushback if I ask. I'm not trying to argue that I should be listed first—I would be asking about being the second-listed co-first author with an equal-contribution statement.

If you were the PI on this paper, would you think it's reasonable for me to ask, or would you consider these contributions more in line with a standard second author?