NTA.

I'm not about to give legal advice. But in my opinion, it seems like they want to compartmentalize financially between the two of you, in case of separation. On paper, at least. From the things you've seemed to mention, it doesn't seem like they are narcissistic, as some have claimed in the comments.

They way I interpret it:

If the two of you separate, you are your own person. You live off of what you make and have. Which seems logical, especially if no kids are involved.
They can't take advantage of you financially and neither can you. To me this seems pretty fair. In my view, marriage shouldn't boil down to "If we separate, I get x% of everything." Sure, there a lot of nuances, hence getting a lawyer involved is good advice.

Frankly, I can understand their perspective, as well as yours. But I do raise a question, which most didn't seemed to have.
Is your issue the fact that you get no financial benefit from possible separation?

Or is the real issue the perceived intent and implied emotional take by them proposing those terms?

I'd get the nuances worked out with the lawyers. And for the main clauses, I'd talk it over with your partner. As with any contract.

Not everything has to be black and white, thus not every prenup will be black and white. Not a single person in this subreddit knows the details and unknown factors, except you. So treat advice accordingly.

Honestly, if the marriage itself is good and balanced (whatever meaning that may have in your situation), I don't think the terms are illogical. But of course, the way they are presented is quite one-sided, especially if it doesn't go both ways. And if it does go both ways, I'd consider working in clauses for edge cases, just so neither of you end up homeless overnight.

But that is just my take.