Elaborating a bit on Nathan's answer, I believe that while the nominal specification for PF30 bottom bracket shells is a 46mm internal diameter, the actual engineering specification is likely to fall within a range that's slightly smaller than nominal. For example, the BB30 spec is a 42mm shell, but this blog post by the Accidental Randonneur says that the actual engineering spec is 41.96-41.98mm. This under-sizing means that the shell provides a firm hold on the cups (if they're properly sized themselves), but it's possible the shell was manufactured or became out of tolerance.
It might also be good to measure the cups, since it's possible that the cup was under-sized rather than the shell being over-sized. I do not know the cups engineering specifications, but I would assume that if the cup measures smaller than the frame's BB shell, the problem was with the cup. However, if the cups are plastic, they may have deformed slightly if they were in-spec and installed into an in-spec shell. I would assume they are not usable after being removed. NB: it's possible that nylon cups might also deform over time from pedaling forces, and these items are a possible argument for using PF BBs with alloy cups (e.g. White Industries, Wheels Mfg.) Naturally, if you reinstall the cup and disclose that, the buyer could price in the fact that they should install a new BB.
To confirm shell size, you could use an accurate pair of calipers to measure the diameter of the drive-side shell at several locations. If any one of the measures is clearly over 46.00mm, then your shell has clearly become out of specification, and the bottom bracket cup would inherently fit loosely in it. Creaks are caused by loose fits. If the cup slid easily out of the frame, then that's another indicator that the shell is out of specification. If a new cup slides easily into the hole, then again, the shell is likely out of spec (or perhaps the cup was). In any case, the frame could have been made out of spec, or the crankset could have been poorly installed and it could have worn the shell out of spec. If the frame's shell clearly measures between 45.96 and 45.98mm at several locations, then it seems likely a new cup could fix the creak (NB: I can't locate the proper engineering specs for the PF30 shell, so I'm assuming that the BB30 spec extrapolates to the PF30 system; this engineering diagram from Hambini looks consistent with my assumption, but I can't confirm.)
I lack personal experience in what to do if the BB shell is too big. I initially wrote that I didn't expect retaining compounds to work. However, note the comments by Nathan; Locktite should be able to fill a gap in size of up to 0.1mm. Loctite 660 appears rated to fill a 0.5mm gap (listed as diametrical clearance maximum under the spec sheet), and it would be a solution if the bore is not round as well as oversized. However, the fix is now reliant on the strength of the retaining compound, and the BB cup will need to be centered correctly in the shell lest it incur off-axis loads.
In theory, if you found a PF30 BB cup that was intentionally made slightly oversized, that could be a fix. For example, Trek makes custom bearings that are oversized by just 0.1mm. This covers the case of a BB90 frame that is just out of specification. However, I can't find slightly oversized PF30 cups. Anyway, it would be best practice to confirm that the BB shell was oversized uniformly. What if the BB shell is out of round but not uniformly out of specification? I'm not sure.
If you're the original owner and a warranty applies, I'd assume that the manufacturer would probably inspect the frame with calipers to confirm that the shell is out of spec.
For future readers, what if you have the opposite problem, i.e. the cups are too hard to press into the frame? If the cups are within the engineering specification, then the frame's shell is likely to be too small. Happily, this can be reversed, albeit only by a shop with the specialized and expensive equipment necessary to face carbon frames (credit to James Raison for the article and deep dive). Also, if the bearing bores were not aligned properly (e.g. the surfaces are not parallel to each other), it's possible facing could address that.
Unfortunately, as Raison discusses, facing equipment is a poor return on investment for shops. This is unfortunate, because many bikes would benefit from some facing work; in the experience of the shop he interviewed, it seemed that only high-end custom bikes were consistently faced when the shop received them. Moreover, it doesn't seem likely that this would help Argenti. His frame would have to be in spec but the cups too small.