Labeling is necessary to some degree, whether by choice or by some external body. The problem comes in when people see themselves as part of the group that they are assigned to (or assign themselves to), rather than a collection of their own views.
Both of the terms are a bit broad. I'm solidly in the socially liberal camp, more moderate in my economic views, though I still skew liberal. For example, I would say I'm pro-progressive taxation, though I think there are limits to how much the rich should be taxed. I've got strong views about gun violence and see many possible routes forward with gun control, but I view gun rights as essential and would do little to restrict ownership of guns. In that way, I wouldn't say I align well with many liberals on these issues, and I see a lot of validity to certain more conservative views.
In general, though, the idea that there's a solid "left" and "right" and that taking things from both sides is somehow moderate is frustrating to me, and the same holds true with the term "centrism". It suggests a sliding, linear scale, and I view political views as more dynamic than that. It's not one dimensional, and while some political spectra use other general terms like communitarianism vs. individualism to turn it two dimensional, even that seems to fall short of accuracy in interpretation of many political views. These are good terms for the sake of simplifying complex perspectives, but they oversimplify to the point that much of what it tells you isn't meaningful.