Yes, I am saying that. The alternative is to use the word "spontaneous," as in "spontaneous generation," in an intentionally (or ignorantly) confusing manner.
The concept of "spontaneous generation" has a specific meaning in the history of science, such that to speak of "a single spontaneous generation of life" is nonsensical. "Spontaneous generation" is explicitly the doctrine that life comes into existence from non-life as a regular occurrence in nature.
If life came into being as the result of a more or less complex process of some kind -- probably one occurring over some period of time, and with various stages, sub-processes or parallel processes involved -- then that would not be "spontaneous," neither in terms of the way the term had been previously used in science, nor in terms of the common dictionary definition of the term.
All unknown and merely presumed by faith in naturalism.
The dictionary does not place a time or number of processes limit on 'spontaneous', although I understand why you would need to.