In a constrained optimization problem, let's consider the example $$\begin{cases}f(x,\ y) = yx^2\ \Tiny(function\ to\ be\ maximized) \\ g(x,\ y) = x^2 + y^2 = 1\ \Tiny(constraint)\end{cases}$$ why does the answer not need to satisfy $f(x^*,\ y^*) = 1$? Geometrically, viewing $f(x,\ y) = yx^2$ and $g(x,\ y) = x^2 + y^2$ in $ℝ^3$ (which motivated this question), why aren't solutions required to be points where $f(x,\ y)$ and $g(x,\ y)$ intersect, or at least where $f(x,\ y)$ intersects $g(x,\ y) = 1$? The solutions turn out to be $f(x^*,\ y^*, f(x^*,\ y^*)) = (±\frac{\sqrt6}{3},\ \frac{\sqrt3}{3},\ \frac{2\sqrt3}{9})$, which both have a height or $z$-coordinate of $\frac{2\sqrt3}{9}$, while I would expect any point that satisfies $g(x,\ y) = 1$ to have a height or $z$-coordinate of $1$. Instead of lying within the within the flat slice of the graph of $g(x,\ y) = x^2 + y^2$ where $g(x,\ y) = 1$, the solutions lie within the slice representing $g(x,\ y) = \frac{2\sqrt3}{9}$, seemingly failing to satisfy the constraint.
This worry can be obfuscated by flattening $ℝ^3$ into a contour plot where the constraint and maximized function do intersect, but only by discarding a dimension of information from the original picture; being aware of the 3D graph the contour plot represents, I still find the matter conceptually troublesome.
One proposed idea has been to view $g(x,\ y)$ as living in $ℝ^2$, thus ignoring its height/$z$-coordinate/output altogether. However, this seems unsatisfactorily at odds with its deep symmetry with $f(x,\ y)$, which lives in $ℝ^3$. Perhaps the labels and terminology in constrained optimization problems give the impression that the function and the constraint are dissimilar animals, but I get the feeling from my trivially faint glimpse of Lagrangian duality that they're actually highly symmetric. One is $f(x,\ y) = yx^2 =\ ????$, and the other $g(x,\ y) = x^2 + y^2 = 1$, and in fact, once solved, I can forget the $x*$ and $y*$ parts of the solution and reframe the problem where $f(x,\ y) = yx^2 =\ \frac{2\sqrt3}{9}$ is the constraint, and $g(x,\ y) = x^2 + y^2 =\ ????$ is the function, and I'll rediscover the same $x^*$ and $y^*$, along with the original constraint constant $1$. I have a hard time convincing myself that expressions with such symmetricity aren't properly viewed as equal in dimension.

Some geometric ideas
In the attached plot we have in light red the surface $S_1(x,y,z) = x^2 y-z = 0$ and in light yellow the surface $S_2(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2-1 = 0$ In blue is depicted the intersection $S_1(x,y,z)\cap S_2(x,y,z)$
We can obtain a surfaces $S_3$ containing the intersection curve, which is more handy
$$ S_3(x,y,z) = (S_1\circ S_2)(x,y,x) = (1-y^2) y -z=0 $$
In gold color we have $S_3(x,y,z)$
Now the solutions for
$$ \frac{d}{dy}((1-y^2) y) = 0\\ $$
are contained into the set of stationary points in $S_1(x,y,z)\cap S_2(x,y,z)$
NOTE
The stationary points for the problem are
$$ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} x & y & z \\ -\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & -\frac{2}{3 \sqrt{3}} \\ -\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{2}{3 \sqrt{3}} \\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & -\frac{2}{3 \sqrt{3}} \\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{2}{3 \sqrt{3}} \\ \end{array} \right] $$
Those points are shown in red over the intersection
NOTE
The MATHEMATICA script associated to the first plot is
f = y x^2 - z h = x^2 + y^2 - 1 gr1 = ContourPlot3D[{h == 0, f == 0}, {x, -1.5, 1.5}, {y, -1.5, 1.5}, {z, -1.5, 1.5}, MeshFunctions -> {Function[{x, y, z, g}, h - f]}, MeshStyle -> {{Thick, Blue}}, Mesh -> {{0}}, ContourStyle -> {Directive[Yellow, Opacity[0.5], Specularity[White, 30]], Directive[Red, Opacity[0.5], Specularity[White, 30]]}, PlotPoints -> 40]