I think it is important to step back. A lot of the objections on here can be summed up by, as one poster put it Men get more freedom because of what? Their inherent maleness.
In every society that is true. None more than the UK. I, like every mother I know, try and insist that my daughter be home by dark, and worry if she isn't, scared about a Sarah Everard situation. I do not do the same for my son, because what? In order to give the equality I am going to restrict them both, when the reality is that he is far less likely to be harressed or worse. He just isn't.
At some point my daughter may well turn around to me and say, my life, my risk, and I will have to accept that, but my heart will be in my mouth, in a way that it will not be for my son. Or she may understand and accept the restrictions of her own free will. But restrictions or risk there is, and everybody on this thread is kidding themselves if they claim to actually give as much freedom to their girls and to their boys. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
And, the second aspect is that all parents restrict their children in very severe ways - and more so today in the UK than they ever used to. As a kid I used to walk to my primary school from aged 5, crossing two roads there and two roads back. Nobody, but nobody in my kids' primary schools would let them do likewise (indeed the school wouldn't let them out the door without an adult until they were in Year 6 and only if they had parent written consent at that age). Once they become teenagers they get and take more freedom, as will your daughter (and son). Until then, parental control is fierce. And parents control what they are exposed to, and what ideas filter through. If you do not allow her to be educated in her tradition/culture, you will be cutting her off from half of what she is (just as if you don't educate her about the life you grew up with, you will be cutting her off from her other half).
And the third aspect is that all parents control the clothes their kids wear up until at least their teenage years. And most parents dress their kids by gender (and most school uniforms in the UK are different by gender). There are parents who dress their girls and boys identically, and there is a movement to do so, but it is certainly pretty mainstream still in the UK to give girls dresses/skirts and boys trousers, so it is very normal to make a distinction. So the question is, is the objection to gendered clothing, or to the idea that your daughter will need to be covered and you son won't - and would you feel less conflicted if you agreed with your husband that your son would not go topless/wear short shorts etc? Then your standards would in fact be the same for both, just more restrictive than the forms of dress you grew up with (ie no tank tops, no bikinis)? By the time they hit their teens, they will start making clothing choices for themselves, and so long as you as parents agree to accept that, ie it is their choice, then again it would be the same rule for both. If your daughter then chooses not to cover herself, you won't be in any different situation to the typical British father who is horrified by the short skirt, tank top, high heels, fishnet stockings that many teens or my generation used to wear to parties, and who ineffectually tried to forbid it. If your husband is asking for hair covering earlier than that, then maybe there is an issue - but many, many Muslims, even those who hold by hair covering, don't require it before puberty. Hair covering at puberty IF you daughter doesn't want it, might be a fight you might have to have then (and maybe that would be the time to leave, if your husband was not willing to tolerate her not doing so), but it is your daughter's hair, and you never know, she actually might want to do it even if it horrifies you - even especially if it horrifies you, teenagers have a habit of trying to differentiate themselves by choosing whatever it is that horrifies their parents (and then change her mind several times over the course of her life). If you are absolutely set on her not covering her hair, you are just as much dictating to her as your husband is - and she might well seize on that as a form of adolescent rebellion.
Who your daughter chooses to marry is a long way away, and so long as you and your husband agree to abide by the UK law that she cannot marry before 18, and your husband is not going to physically force her (if he is the type to do that, then I would agree with all the posters saying leave, but I don't get that impression), then you can safely leave the choice to your daughter, who will do what she wants, whatever your husband (or you) says. Children make their own choices - and indeed, you leave with your daughter and raise her as a single mum, but she grows up knowing that her father is Muslim, you might well find her deciding in her early teens to adopt the most stringent version of covering as part of her identity formation. Children do that. Leaving to "save her" in circumstances where there is no abuse can have a way of backfiring.