Yes great caution is required in regard to any certainty placed in the authenticity of any of the writings of Origen. There are a lot of problems.
As a start the Classical historians maintain there were two separate Origens in the 3rd century. One a Platonist and the other a Christian. They also maintain that the teacher of Origen the Platonist was Ammonias Saccas the "father" of neoplatonism. Whereas the teacher of Origen the Christian was another Ammonias, this one a Christian Ammonius. These duplications may be coincidental. I've not seen a good explanation of them.
Not to get into the weeds, but the writings of "Origen" are highly problematic. During the 4th and 5th century the writings of Origen formed the basis of the Origenist controversy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origenist_Crises
As such it is reasonable to expect that the church [industry] has only "preserved" the manuscripts of "Origen" which are convenient for their meta-narrative. Origen is also preserved in the writings of Post Nicene Fathers. For example the Philocalia of Origen was produced under the editorial hands of Basil and Gregory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philocalia_(Origen)