Well that's exactly the point, he does in fact contribute a lots of other things.
Well, the question then is what exactly does "a lot" mean, and how much does it need to be to be enough without the scoring? Layoffs, good runs, hold-up play, through balls to the wingers, pressing actions that force mistakes - if you're doing one or two of those in the course of a game, is that a lot? Or does it need to be 3 or 4? 6 or 7? And that's not semantics - the point is it doesn't just matter what a player
can do, it matters much more how frequently he does it.
Different players contribute in different ways, and the truth of it is strikers generally tend to give you a lower volume of impactful actions besides scoring than players in other positions, simply because they tend have the ball less than others and are for obvious reasons not as heavily involved in defensive actions. You could ask what then is the point of playing them, and there is only one good answer to that question: Because they score or assist goals considerably more frequently than players in other positions do. The same applies to Højlund (whose non-scoring contributions are not bad, but also by no means remarkably large, for a striker): The goals are what makes it worth it. Without them, it wouldn't be enough. That doesn't mean he's not a good striker, or that he doesn't do anything other than score. The same would be true for most other good PL strikers. This is hardly a very drastic claim.