"normal" is a perfectly fine word and there's no reason to criticize someone for using it.

It would be somewhat ironic in this context to be policing the use of normal.

I also would acknowledge the intent of offering neurotypical as an alternative might be kind.

However I also agree "normal" works quite well. It is especially distinguished by the quotes as "normal" and subjective, not normatively valued.

What's normal?

It's a math term whose meaning depends on the qualities of the other people around you, not a reference to any one particular set of characteristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

"Neurotypical" is the more current and precise term when discussing human behavior, cognition, or neurodevelopment. "Normal" is vague, value-loaded, and scientifically weaker because it implies that neurodivergent people are abnormal rather than simply different. In this context, "neurotypical" is clearer language.