This is more like a facial composite[1] than a mug shot[2]. A mug shot is a photo of an identified person. A facial composite is a synthetic graphic of an unidentified person. The distinction is important because a facial composite is an investigative tool use to identify a suspect, and a mug shot is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_composite [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot
Conceptually I would agree that this is more similar to facial composites (it’s a recreation of the suspect’s face not directly via a photograph but via some other means, either memory or, in this case, DNA) but comparing it to mug shots is not absurd or even weird. There is even a good argument one could make that this is conceptually more similar to mug shots than facial composites: both photos and DNA don’t rely on someone else via memory but directly on the suspect.
Since mug shots are well known making the comparison for the sake of a headline makes perfect sense. The term facial composite is much less well known. The conceptual similarity is there either way.
I think the comparison very clearly communicates why this new way of creating mug shots is very useful and as such there is nothing wrong with it.