Your question is not pointless, or insulting. It is instead a significant subset of the "hard problem of consciousness".
An important preamble is that perceptions are very different from direct sensory data. Our eyes jitter, and create a highly time-variant scan pattern of a very narrow FOV, and this is the raw data from our sensors. This data seems to go into a memory buffer, and runs thru an unconscious grouping and categorization process, with significant intermediate steps such as edge detection, and object assignment. Whiteness, brownness, chairness, these are much higher tier post-processing outputs of our unconscious neurology.
The best functional explanation of what role our perceptions do for us, is spelled out in Thinking Fast and Slow -- where perceptions are how system 1 submits its evaluation of our world, along with its meaning, and preferred reaction, to System 2 for double-check.
Your question seems to be why this handoff uses "perceptions" rather than just being logic states. This is a very legitimate question, and is a key feature of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Another excellent book that offers major hints about this question is Incognito, which describes consciousness as a corporate Chief Executive, who is misinformed about how central he/she is to the initiation actions of the corporation, most of which are initiated long before the CEO even knows about them. Incognito, among other insights, notes how many times this handoff to consciousness does NOT include qualia/perception -- such as when we are driving while daydreaming about something else too. We can bring our attention back to driving, and then get perceptions as well, but often we DO just get logic states passed by our system 2 for it to monitor system 1.
THAT perceptions are how this handoff is done, is only a partial answer. And partial answers are how science operates, every answer has a follow on question, which in this case is "why perceptions, why does system 2 consciousness seem to do much of its processing using qualia, while system 1, our unconscious neurology, does not use qualia at all? Why do a format transform like this?". The full statement of the Hard Problem is that under purely physicalist models, in which perception/qualia is not causal, these models would predict that evolutionary variance would lead to our no longer having perceptions -- hence that we DO have perceptions is a refuting test case for these models.
The only physicalist answer I have found that comes even close to answering the hard problem of consciousness is strong emergence, where emergent phenomena can be causal independent of their substrate. I consider "emergent phenomena to be causally independent" is actually to be emergent dualism, which is Popper's approach to dualism. This "near-physicalist" answer is still only a partial answer to the question, because it does not explain why the emergent phenomenon is qualia/experiences.
As an interactive spiritual dualist, I have a proposal -- that qualia/experience/selfhood/agency were already aspects of souls prior to ensoulment, and souls ensouling life early in evolution provided early proto-bacteria a significant capability advantage over the proto-bacteria that were not ensouled. And I postulate the frame-transform from chemical/logic states to qualia has been part of living things for billions of years. This answer is once more only a partial answer, which per the methods of science can only push "why" back one question at a time, with further "why"s spawned.
One further question this one spawns is why our neurology does so much of the hard work of processing our inputs, rather than letting the soul side of the interface do this. My proposal for this answer is that there are thruput limits to soul's processing, and while souls could handle the processing needs of a proto-bacteria, they need a massive pre-processing assist to handle the complexity of info and decision choices that we humans get as inputs.