I think your proposition is interesting to ponder. What would it mean if the universe were conscious? It's alluring, and I like thinking about the boundless possibilities, especially for raising our ability as a species to thrive via broadly realized equanimity.

Its just not robust enough to be convincing. Humans can accept and integrate concepts even if it's simply that they like the idea, one of our quirks I guess. It has a problem that it jumps to a conclusion with no argument.

We are part of the universe, and (we are) conscious. (Missing argument) Therefore the universe is conscious.

Cars are part of the city, and (they are) moving. (Missing argument) Therefore the city is moving.

Obviously the city is not moving, but it contains movement. Typically we would use different grammar to indicate the more accurate statement, the city contains moving cars.

The farthest logic can take us without filling in the missing argument is that the universe contains conscious entities.

If you have an argument as to why consciousness is different than other attributes of things in the universe it might fill in the argument. But if the component parts of a system assign their characteristic qualities of consciousness, movement, color, temperature, and many more complex characteristics to the higher systems of which they are a part, then we are even less able to describe something on the scale of the universe.