Yes, but when the scientific fact is used to passive or micro-aggressively tell people how they're supposed to look, then you have a problem. Also height restrictions are part of "ideal woman" stereotypes (as well as "ideal man" stereotypes - Tom Cruise has to use boxes and such because he's 5'6" and therefore shorter than most other leads, including female leads who are often wearing 3-4" heels).
There are women who are over 6' and it used to be that these women would be "treated" for their height when they were growing girls, in the belief that if they were taller than most men, no one would want to marry them. Same thing happened to short boys.
Yes, taller women are somewhat rare, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented.
I should mention, though, that I think all the female models in this game have issues, and that height restrictions are only one of them.
If we accept that there is going to be a fixed number of body-types and not a number-modifier for centimeters, kg, weight distribution, etc, with each of the body-types being 'bigger' than the previous, you pretty much have 4 options:
1) Male=Female for all body-types 2) Male > Female for all body-types 3)Female > Male for all body-types
4) Mixed (i.e body-type 1: m>f, 2:f> m, etc)
The problem is that bioware has to pick only one of the 4 available (unless they took the time to give us an actual character creation tool, but they didn't....). However, no matter which one they picked they could 'offend' someone, at least by your reasoning. For instance with 4) a woman might be 'offended' and say, like you did, 'are short women supposed to be shorter than short men?' or with 1) ,a man might be offended and say 'are fat men supposed to be equally tall with fat women?'
When it comes to how one looks (and many other things), even forcing them to be 'equal' to others is restrictive and offensive. Bioware couldn't avoid not making a not-perfect choice, so they might as well go with the averages.