Whether you should comply or not should be ruled by asking yourself if doing so will improve your work. If you come to the conclusion that it would improve the paper, you really should follow the advice. Most other considerations such as if it is a lot of work should be very low (if at all) on your list.

As a self-confident researcher the quality of your work should be in your focus. It is therefore never mandadory to follow reviewer advice, but it is mandatory to explain the reasons if you decide against it. If there are good reasons not to do as requested, you can explain it accordingly to the editor. In any case, the editor is the one to convince, so you could discuss your question with her/him.

Whether you should comply or not should be ruled by asking yourself if doing so will improve your work. If you come to the conclusion that it would improve the paper, you really should follow the advice. Most other considerations such as if it is a lot of work should be very low (if at all) on your list.

As a self-confident researcher the quality of your work should be in your focus. It is therefore never mandatory to follow reviewer advice, but it is mandatory to explain the reasons if you decide against it. If there are good reasons not to do as requested, you can explain it accordingly to the editor. In any case, the editor is the one to convince, so you could discuss your question with her/him.