Lenders don't want poor people to have low credit scores per se - they want people who won't pay back their loans to have low credit scores (I know it's sort of obvious, but I know this for a fact because I've worked with/around credit score modeling). The lack of money and the inability to pay back loans just happen to correlate very strongly so poor people are more likely to have lower scores.
In your case the credit score worked as intended because the "bank of daddy" will also likely be there in the future. You may have an unfair advantage, but that advantage is you were born with money; the fact that your credit score is higher is just a direct result of this.
edit: I should make it clear that I'm not talking about using credit scores for employment, which I think is absolutely discriminatory and misguided from the employer's perspective.
So it makes me wonder if he paid income taxes on that money. My guess would be no. I would guess the situation is similar for all those born with money. This makes this advantage doubly unfair.
In your case the credit score worked as intended because the "bank of daddy" will also likely be there in the future. You may have an unfair advantage, but that advantage is you were born with money; the fact that your credit score is higher is just a direct result of this.
edit: I should make it clear that I'm not talking about using credit scores for employment, which I think is absolutely discriminatory and misguided from the employer's perspective.