I have issues with this idea. I was an outsider at school. I largely didn't want to be in a big friendship group as I couldn't handle friendships with more than two people at a time and as a voracious reader with a strong personality, 90% of the time I wanted to be left alone to read.
Labelling girls as "queen bee" or "girl in the water" is reprehensible. Those girls will take those "identities" through life and it will define how they navigate life.
Someone who has been given information (which will largely be based on the Forer effect/Barnum statements like all "personality type/archetype" bollocks) that leads them to believe they're a queen bee will navigate life believing they are a natural born leader and will walk through doors opened for them by their perception of themselves.
A girl labelled a "girl in the water" (drowning without friends is implied in the language) will feel inadequate. Not good enough for the group. In fact the other girls in her class had to be taught how to make room in their friendship group for her, instead of letting genuine friendship groups form naturally. She has also been told that these labels are either/or, therefore she is not "queen bee" material and is being subtly told that leadership and success are not for her, she will always be dependent on the charity of others to get through life. This creates a dependent mindset (and external locus of control) which is unhelpful for actually taking control of her own life later on.
A girl labelled as a follower or similar is being conditioned to self-identify as a passive follower. She might not feel the "taught helplessness" that is being signified at the "girl in the water" but she is also being taught that leadership is not for her.
These sort of friendship groups are based on a very dated view of how children socialise, based on power structures that were largely derived from the power structures they were modelled by adults. Corporal punishment and strict discipline in school and at home taught children that you "get to the top" where you are the "queen bee" (or leader, if male; note how they don't get twee nicknames to try and delegitimise their leadership traits). The queen bee, by the example given to them by borderline abusive power structures, used to lead by making life unpleasant for others.
What we are seeing over the past fifteen years or so is a massive shift in this mentality from the children themselves (as parenting has become more positive and schools are organised differently with less of a rigid hierarchial setup), and it does them a great disservice to shove them into boxes derived from our own childhoods and those who came before us.
So I think this program is reductionist and inadequate and it treats children who don't want big friendship groups as a "problem" to be solved instead of celebrating their individuality and autonomy to choose how they socialise with others.
Education on anti-bullying is very important but this is just not the way to go about it, if anything, reinforcing these obsolete power structures within childhood social groups will do the opposite.
Additionally, excluding the boys reinforces the stereotype that "social" work is for girls and boys just naturally socialise, and that boys don't need to talk about their feelings (by extension, have no feelings) which primes them more for the genderfeels nonsense to be peddled by another for-profit group masquerading as a charity.