In Christianity it is unacceptable hubris
It is pretty much impossible to say 'in Christianity' about anything and be accurate. Not all of them have the concept of original sin (neither do most branches of Judaism). Not all of them even take Jesus as divine (which isn't a requirement for Messiah). There are many denominations of Christianity that lean more towards questioning, and can back that view with the text just as much if not better than those who take an authoritarian deity point of view.
I mean, did Abraham and Moses have unacceptable hubris to argue with God? That is not how the text shows those arguments, it is shown as compassion and bravery to awaken God's mercy at a time of his wrath. Between Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and the others, it seems prophets were chosen from those who would be willing to argue with God for the good of people.
This is continued in many traditions. There are variations of this story of a teacher being asked if he believes that God created everything for a purpose? He said that of course he believed that God created everything for a purpose. They said in that case, why did God create atheists? And he replied “Because those who have faith sometimes make their peace with the injustices of this world by claiming that they are the will of God. Therefore God created atheists to protest and fight every injustice”. In some traditions, it is better to be a kind heretic than hiding behind religious institutions and a particular interpretation of the texts and allow suffering to happen.
Even in Job where God has his little 'were you there when I created the foundations of the world' speech, God doesn't prevent any further arguing, he doesn't punish Job for his argument, God encouraged him to continue if he could. It's odd that people think we can't rationalize and understand God so we must accept his mysterious ways, but also think it's funny for people to assume we can argue with a deity that can textually be shown to be open and encourage it. Job might be special since God talked to Satan (not rejecting him) and allowed him to torture a man to test his faith, but it's a repeated theme.
I know the texts alright, at least the versions I've studied, but I find how they were compiled, shifts in translation agreements over time, and how it's been used to take and hold onto power within institutions and wider society far more interesting than it as an argument for an individualistic deity. Biblical scholars may not agree on how to interpret the text, but there isn't much on how much tweaking and edits were done, the fingerprints of people in pursuit of power are all over it throughout centuries of retranslations. It's fascinating how the secrets of the original languages and retranslations always lead to those revealing them affirming their own beliefs and authority.
Some get personal meaning from the texts, but institutions that use them was as a tool of power should be as challenged when they abuse that power as any other. Many religious people are the first to fight, I've worked with them. Others are more than happy to use 'God's will' as an excuse to laugh at the ideas and ignore the pain of others. I'd call that hubris, but I'm equally open to that any divine force doesn't particularly care what we think of it.