Yes and no. If your daughter hasn't proven to be untrustworthy, and it's your own misgivings and worry, then you're violating a very deep level of trust for no reason.
On the other hand, if your daughter has proven untrustworthy, well, she's proven she can't be trusted, and that's why you have to take extremes just to be sure she's not going to screw herself over really badly one day.
If she doesn't like it, then perhaps she should prove herself more trustworthy when nobody's looking.
However, in the end, it's ultimately your fault as a parent. Children choose their own way when they get older, but no person in their right minds chooses to do things that will destroy them.
That happens when the structure of discipline and trust is unstable, inconsistent, and because of it, children learn to rely on their own thinking and feelings instead of being able to look to their wiser, more experienced parents.
The left wing works hard to make strict homes with well-to-do parents who maintain a structured discipline and demand a lot from their children look bad. But the reality is, that's how society used to always be, whether the parents were well-to-do or not.
And since we have become far more lenient and far more passive about discipline, and things have not gotten better. They've only gotten worse.
Once I heard my cousin say that when you tell a kid not to do something, they'll do it anyway. Well, none have proven that less true than the liberal left who by not telling their kids not to, and no demanding accountability out of them have single-handedly proven that such attitudes actually destroy children.
A structured discipline, a structured accountability that is not lenient, but appropriate, and most of all, whether it's overbearing or underbearing, the most important of all, is consistency. You draw the lines and you don't change them for any reason except perhaps if it's valid to change it, and that's the only reason. That validity to change it is based on your judgement as the parents.