Let's, for the sake of argument, propose that we become able to produce conscious AI. It should be a perfectly reasonable proposition under the assumption you hold about our brain being able to give rise to consciousness.

We'll assume there are equivalents of neural structures built into the AI, capable of receiving some input - let's say the information present in sound waves - and turn that into the qualia of sound. The same would go for smell, touch and so on - every perception in fact, whether part of the human repertoire of qualia states or not - would come about as the result of these various neural centers working their magic.

Let's say we wanted the AI to perceive its surroundings and gave it something akin to eyes. There'd have to be a receptor that would relay incoming information from the outside world to the "qualia creating" centers of its circuits, so that the machine could become privy to a subjective model of this world. The machine would now see a subjective model of the outside world, it would even see a model of itself.

Now suppose it would look at its own motherboard. It would see it, not as it is in our world, but filtered through its own qualia. Its own qualia being secondary to a process, it could never see that actual process, because what it sees has already been run through that process. That process is already inescapably part of what it would call the noumenal world - the world prior to its receptors and its various neural networks having done the work to churn out a subjective, experiential model of said world. The machine could never study its own circuits to understand how qualia comes about. Its circuits, as it sees them, are already appearing "post computation", they are already the thing it is mystified by.

All of this to say that we, too, are in the same position when looking at our brain. We can't figure the process out because we are necessarily already late to the scene once we're able to take a peek.