Well, I think it's because you are leaving your poor king without any place to castle.
Why is this move a blunder?
Well, I think it's because you are leaving your poor king without any place to castle.
I thought a blunder was either:
- making a move which makes you miss some advantage, or gives the opponent substantial advantage, provided they act on it
- or, making a move where I miss a free piece (or missing a series of trades in which I would've won), or allows the opponent to take a free piece (or allows for a series of trades in which the opponent will win)

I think there are also positional blunders, in which you allow opponent to make further development on pieces, while you lack development and king safety. Maybe, 4...Bxb2 5. Rxb2 e6, and already the position is dubious. All of your pieces are on the back-rank, and your king has nowhere to castle safely. Just a thought!
You are entering an open game and giving your king no place to hide from checks. Checks can give your opponent tempos. Temporarily attacking a bishop is not worth all that, unless you are planning a huge kingside pawn storm.
Blunders are not just lost pieces. They are also missed checkmates. There can even be positional blunders if they differ from perfection by 2 full pawn values.
https://i.imgur.com/3LFVBxW.png
Edit: Btw this is a game against a human, but I opened it up in Practice Vs Computer after.
I move my pawn up to force his bishop to move away. If he goes bishop e4 to attack my rook, I'll just do f3 and push his bishop away again, which also re-defends my first pawn so my queen doesn't have that job anymore. The computer wanted me to do cxd5, but that would just be instantly retaken by his queen, and why should I want to do a pawn trade that forces my opponent to take one of his pieces out?
I can imagine maybe that the computer wanted me to do cxd5, so that when his queen takes, I can then move my knight to c3, which forces his queen to move... but even so, I don't see that I blundered anything with the pawn move. At worst, I would've thought "inaccuracy" or "good". No?