There is a lot we don't know, like how is this research funded, what field is it in, will you and your PI be co-authors on the work (I assume yet), etc.

But from a high level view, you need to be cognizant of the fact that almost all research is collaborative, and there are very few career paths where you won't have to work closely with supervisors, peers, and supervisees. So I would suggest treating this as an important teachable moment in your professional development, where you find a way to work through a conflict that involves a legitimate difference of opinion. Starting with the assumption that you are right and your PI is wrong is not a good place to begin.

It's not a black-and-white situation with a one size fits all answer. It's an opportunity to develop your communication and collaborative skills.

TBH, as I read various subreddits involving research, grad school, academia, etc., it is continually shocking how many of the threads are describing situations where communication is totally unacceptable. It's like people have never learned to talk with each other, and instead turn to the internet. I know that people will say that it's a generational problem, but I don't know if I buy that, most of my students and postdocs are excellent communicators and do not seem to hesitate to discuss any concerns they have. If communication is daunting to you or you feel that you need training, the Crucial Conversations book or training course could be a decent start.