Fantasy doesn't do that. There may be technology there but it is not central to the story (i.e. the story does not require it) and/or it functions as a deus ex machina; science is brought in at some time to save the hero or create a dilemma for the protagonist, but is not explained, reused or quantified
Lots of times it sounds to me as if SF and Fantasy are split on criteria indistinguishable from high and low quality writing - with the split depending on which category the splitter favors.
The writers themselves have weighed in.
Harlan Ellison, RIP, rejected (in his normal abrasive manner) the label "science fiction" for his stuff - preferring labels such as "fantasy" etc.
Harlan Ellison wrote important, influential scripts and screenplays for the original Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, and Star Trek, along with a thousand or more short stories that are routinely classified as "Science Fiction" and have strongly influenced movies and the like that almost everyone classifies as "science fiction" (The Terminator, for example).
On the other hand, Ursula Le Guin RIP - who has calmly accepted the label "science fiction" for some of her works, in general agreement with everybody else, despite the involvement of technology in many of those writings being distinctly non-technical or even peripheral - has asserted that the Star Wars franchise is not science fiction at all, but sword&sorcery romance, and contrasted it with the work of Philip Dick and Harlan Ellison to make the point.
Note that the "technology" involved in those of Le Guin's works generally agreed to be fantasy - wizards and magic staffs and dragons and the like - is highly technical and central to the story and explained and treated carefully, rigorously, repeatedly. So is - in a different manner - the "technology" of Terry Pratchett's Discworld (normally considered fantasy).
Meanwhile, "fictional creatures" is a slippery category. The entire Art is often referred to as "fiction", and all of its creatures and/or characters "fictional", for a reason.