A fallacy is a non-sequitur of a deductive argument. So first of all you'd need to formulate that in the respective form and then you'd search for where it goes wrong.
Also the important part is to realize that something is wrong and where it goes wrong and why not to give it a fancy name.
So in your case the underlying idea seems to be:
A is necessary for B
You do B
therefore you need to have A
Now that could be wrong for various reasons, like you could say "you need a spoon to eat soup", you want to eat soup therefore you need to have a spoon.
But while that is how you usually eat soup you could also eat it with a fork, by dipping stuff in it, by tilting the bowl, ... Some would be considered gross, wasteful or painfully inefficient, but if it's just about what is possible, there's a lot more ways how to eat a soup.
So hence there are a lot of unstated premises and goals. It's assumed that it's not just about eating soup, but also about adhering to societal norms and so on or that you are interested in efficiency. Like it could be that using a machine to do chores is more efficient, but it could also be that you're not interested in efficiency but find some Zen in doing these things, so doing them faster is not even your goal.
So idk there are ideas like "if you buy a car you also need to buy fuel", which kinda make sense, assuming that you use it for the automotive purpose. So in that case it would not be a fallacy but rather playing captain obvious. While a collector might very well buy cars without even having a drivers license. So while not necessarily useful in the colloquial sense it's not impossible to do these things.
So whether the person has a point or not kinda depends on the concrete example.