Speaking as a hiring manager this feels perfectly reasonable so I'd be interested to know why people might think it isn't.
I write a job spec which lists what we're looking for which is advertised and passed to recruiters - if you're interested in the job you've almost certainly seen that.
Assuming you do have the experience, using the spec you should be able to tweak your CV in about 5 minutes to highlight the key things we're looking for. If you do that, you've cleared this (very low) bar with a very small time investment and it's not a problem. If your CV makes it past the recruiter (or HR department or other non-technical screener) I then know that the CV I'm looking at is worth my time and the following interview is more focused as I know a bit more about what you've done where.
Yes you are having to spend time but, as I say, this should be a very short tweak to your existing CV so it doesn't feel like a big ask given that I'm going to spend longer than that reading it (and hopefully interviewing you about it).
Obviously if there is no job spec then this doesn't work so well but there's usually something, even if it's just stuff you've gleaned from the advert or conversations with the person you learned about the role from.
As an aside, please don't ever try to get round the keyword thing by listing everything you've done or used. I had a CV the other week which listed 43 skills, tools and technologies for one nine month role. From that I have no way of knowing what you used in passing and what you really know - you've provided so much information it just became noise. My rule when I'm working out what to put - if you put it on your CV you'd better feel happy answering (proper) questions about it and I don't believe that you passed that threshold with 43 things in a nine month period.