I feel the writers of 2049 simply didn't get what the original Blade Runner was actually about. Blade Runner is not a strictly literal depiction of events, it is a very symbolic film about humanity and oppression. The "replicants" nature is left vague on purpose, which is meant to point us towards the idea that they aren't really manufactured at all. A surface-level reading of the film makes little sense, as there are numerous logical inconsistencies with the nature of the replicants, and things only make sense once you look at what they actually represent. They represent rebellion against the oppressive system that makes slaves out of everyone in it, and that's why they need to be "retired".
2049 drops the ball by taking the whole replicant-thing way too literally, and actually showing us that they are manufactured products. Sure, 2049 isn't a dumb film by any means, and it covers some interesting themes of it's own, but it just feels like the sequel depicts a completely different world from the first film. I wouldn't hold this against the writers, as almost no-one seems to grasp the meaning of the first film, but it seems that either the writers misunderstood the original, or they intentionally changed the implicit meaning because they were afraid audiences are too dumb to actually piece it together, or would outright reject the idea if it was explicit.