Makdish A Baal Mum And Temurah

The Rambam Issuray Mizbaoch (1:2) rules if one is makdish a baal mum to the mizbaoch one gets lashes, "וְכָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מוּם לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְלוֹקֶה עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב-כ) "כּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ לִדְמֵי [נְסָכִים] לוֹקֶה שֶׁבִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים הוּא:  This depends on the girsa in the Genmorah Temurah 7a.  The Chinuch (#285) asks why should there be malkos if its a lav that does not have an action.  He answers that the Rambam held it is like the lav of temurah that one gets lashes for violating it since they are both lavin about hekdesh.   The Minchas Chinuch explains the Chinuch means that the speech that that causes the acvtion is considered an action like the Geomrah says in Temurah (3a.)  The difficulty (as the M.C. himself notes,) is that the Rambam does not rule that there are lashes for violating temurah because his words create an effect rather he says it is a kabbalah of the sages (Temurah 1:1) "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע וּמֵמִיר וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֵׁם. שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין אֵלּוּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל וְלוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן."  If that is the case, there is no comparison to the case of being makdish a baal mum to the mizbaoch?  As mentioned in the past, the Rambam doesn't disagree with the logic that if one's speech causes an action there is lashes, the Rambam just held that is not applicable by temurah.  The Rambam held the lav of temurah is not causing the kedusha to become attached to the second animal, it is to attempt to remove the kedusha from the first animal.  The fact that the second animal becomes kadosh is not because of his actions its because of the גזירת הכתוב.  That is why the Rambam does not understand that temurah is considered that his words are causing an action, for they are not causing the chalos kedusha.  However, by makdish baal mum the Rambam can indeed agree that the dibbur is considered an action.

What is bothering me is that the language of the Chinuvh does not sound like the M.C.'s understanding.  He never mentions בדיבוריה קעביד מעשה and just seems to draw a hekesh between two different lavin of hekdesh.   But why would we compare them, if there is a specific kabbalah that temurah gets leshes even though there is no action how would that carry over to being makdish a baal mum?