Your argument is too simplistic
I depends who utters this sentence.
If it is used by someone who thinks that the argument offered doesn't include enough details to arrive at a conclusion, or if the conclusion iitself can't be made from the arguments, then it is justified. If he has better (more complex) arguments. So it is no fallacy.
If someone says that the elementary particles offer a too simple explanation of the phenomena observed in particle accelerators she will meet a lot of resistance. The standard model of partìcles contains high level mathematical machinary, which is not easily given up on. There are no reasons to give this up if the observations in the experiments give no reason for this. Ockham's razor is applied. Recent experiments though have shed doubt and our friend can argue again that the model is too simplistic (
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01033-8). But the defenders of the status quo will still try to keep the power and consider her arguments to be wrong. They will try to stick to the old by redefining parameters, redoing theoretical calculations, etc. But in the end the arguments of old model keepers can turn out to be too simplistic indeed.
Something can go the other way too. Enormous mathematical calculations with thousands of terms were made to show that a charged black hole has an angular momentum of 12 ( the 12J calculation). This was done in order to solve the information paradox in black hole physics. But it turns out that there may be no paradox at all! Complex mathematics isn't the garantied road to reality...
This holds of course for argueing in any field. Be it physics, mathematics, philisophy, astrology, body health, economics, or whatever. Of course I do not assume that complexity is used to show one's superiority or authority. Which can be the case and often is the case.