Configuration classes reduce cohension and increase coupling in the consumers. This is because there may be many settings that don’t relate to the one or two needed by your class, yet in order to fulfill the dependency, your implementation of IConfiguration must supply values for all of the accessors, even the irrelevant ones.
It also couples your class to infrastructure knowledge: details like “these values are configured together” bleed out of the application configuration and into your classes, increasing the surface area affected by changes to unrelated systems.
The least complex, most flexible way to share configuration values is to use constructor injection of the values themselves, externalizing infrastructure concerns. However, in a comment on another answer, you indicate that you are scared of having a lot of constructor parameters, which is a valid concern.
The key point to recognize is that there is no difference between primitive and complex dependencies. Whether you depend on an integer or an interface, they are both things you don’t know and must be told. From this perspective, IConfiguration makes as much sense as IDependencies. Large constructors indicate a class has too much responsibility regardless of whether the parameters are primitive or complex.
Consider treating int, string and bool like you would any other dependency. It will make your classes cleaner, more focused, more resistant to change, and easier to unit test.