Sort of, but not exactly. You can do this, but only in the right way.
One problem is that right the “authorial intent” school of hermeneutics is ascendant. The “divine intent-human words school” has merit but is not accepted right now among most OT scholars. Maybe they are wrong, but they their starting presumption is that you are ignorant about hermeneutics if you an argument that goes this direction. Your interpretation relies on the divine-intent, over merely authorial intent.
Problem two is that your reading is a large departure from traditional readings. No appears to have come to this but you. If this is the true teaching of that passage, why did everyone miss it for 2,000 years (or more)? Unless you have a compelling reason for this, you lose. You can be nearly certain you are wrong, because such a story seems to violate infallibility.
How do you get around these?
For #1, you can make a careful case that you understand the difference between authorial and divine intent, citing key proponents of each position, and giving an incisive reason that either (1) you are in the ‘authorial intent’ tradition of “generic promise” or (2) you are in the ‘divine intent’ school, and are prepared to demonstrate convincingly that this is the appropriate that approach be used here.
For #2, that is much more difficult. I do not know a way around this. Your only hope is to poor over traditional theology to find a forgotten tradition that reads it in a manner similar as you. If this is really the true teaching of the passage, I’d expect you might find it. If not, then I do not expect you will. With out this piece, however, I think your case is toast.
You should know that this title is a really be red flag. If you should drop this, because it basically advertise from the start that you are divine intent, not authorial intent. It puts you at a deficit. It is rhetorically nice, but it is one of the flags for quality that triggers people immediately (including me).
Keep Exegesis and Theology Separate?
So, there may be another way forward. I think part of what is happening is that you are mixing theology and exegesis. These cannot be the same act. Theology is to be Christ-centered, but the Old Testament does not usually intend to speak of the man Jesus. It points to Jesus, sure, but it does not usually intend to speak of Him. If you practice better hygiene here, you might find away forward.
You would do the exegesis (what does the passage say?) without reference to Christ/Jesus. Then, in theology, in light of Jesus, you would show how he fits in. You have to be clear, though, of what the text is and isn’t doing.
I know that means you’ll lose your nice 3 part division of 1:26-27, but I do not think this is ultimately something you can hold on to.
Focus on the Theophany?
I share your impulse to think about Genesis alongside Jesus. That is a good impulse. One place where tradition helps you is with the theophany of Yahweh. There is a long history of seeing the Theophany as an image of Jesus in some sort of pre-incarnate yet bodily form. The passage does not say that the Theophany is Jesus, but some traditions do. I reference that tradition, and I’m clearly on solid ground. No one disputes this.
Perhaps that could be a way to satisfy the same impulse, in a more sound way. You emphasize the features of Genesis 2 - 4 that seem to present Yahweh as a corporeal presence, and remind readers of the traditional interpretation of theophany. This what I do, and even won over @jongarvey in an exchange with BioLogos (unless I changed his mind, its not his view). The strength of that strategy is that it just does not set off any alarm bells at all. There is an immense amount of precedent.
Getting back to the elephant
Why do you keep passing over this?
This may be among your real winners. So much so, it is seeping into my book right now!