Your main problem is that lead and gold do not have the same ratio of protons to neutrons, so you won't be able to just rearrange your lead into gold. You will end up with some leftover neutrons however you do it.
An atom of gold has 79 protons, 118 neutrons, and -31.1 MeV of excess energy. An atom of lead has (on average) 82 protons, 125.24 neutrons, and -22.4 MeV of excess energy. A lone neutron has 8.1 MeV of excess energy.
If we want to achieve a maximum lead-to-gold ratio, we can simply emit all of the excess neutrons as neutron radiation. On average, each atom of lead will produce 1.04 atoms of gold, 2.76 neutrons, and -12.4 MeV of energy. That minus sign is a Bad Thing: it means that we have an energy deficit, i.e. we will need to put in that much energy for the reaction to take place. How much? About 50 Megawatt-hours per ounce of gold. You would also absorb on the order of tens of Sieverts of neutron radiation per ounce of gold produced. This is probably not good for your wizard.
We can do what Abulafia suggests in his answer and convert the excess neutrons into some light element. The best candidate is probably tritium, since it will take up two excess neutrons per lost proton. We will end up 7.9% tritium by mass. Unfortunately we still need to put in energy, around 73.8 MeV per atom of lead, since this is effectively doing fusion in reverse.
Another good candidate for a 'neutron sponge' is plutonium-244, with around 1.6 times as many neutrons as protons. We end up with around 34% plutonium by mass. This time our energy output is less, but still negative, with 18.0 MeV needed per lead atom. (This time, we're doing fission in reverse.)
I wrote a linear programming routine to find the highest-yield zero-energy transmutation from one given element to another, using all isotopes with half-lives over a given threshold. Here are some examples of transmutations into gold (percentages are mass fractions):
- $\text{Pb}\to 8.5\%~^{126}\text{Sn} + 33.1\%~^{228}\text{Ra} + 58.4\%~\text{Au}$ (14 carat)
- $\text{Pb}\to 13.7\%~^{126}\text{Sn} + 30.2\%~^{244}\text{Pu} + 56.0\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing radium)
- $\text{Pb}\to 15.0\%~^{136}\text{Xe} + 30.1\%~^{244}\text{Pu} + 54.9\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing radioactive tin)
- $\text{Pb}\to 14.3\%~^{136}\text{Xe} + 33.0\%~^{238}\text{U} + 52.7\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing plutonium)
- $\text{Pb}\to 0.4\%~\text{D} + 64.6\%~^{204}\text{Hg} + 35.0\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing all radioactive elements)
- $\text{Hg}\to 6.9\%~^{126}\text{Sn} + 11.7\%~^{250}\text{Cm} + 81.5\%~\text{Au}$ (just below 20 carat)
- $\text{Hg}\to 6.6\%~^{126}\text{Sn} + 12.6\%~^{244}\text{Pu} + 80.7\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing Curium)
- $\text{Hg}\to 7.2\%~^{136}\text{Xe} + 12.6\%~^{244}\text{Pu} + 80.2\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing radioactive tin)
- $\text{Hg}\to 6.9\%~^{136}\text{Xe} + 13.8\%~^{236}\text{U} + 79.3\%~\text{Au}$ (disallowing plutonium)
- $\text{Hg}\to 0.1\%~\text{D} + 26.7\%~^{204}\text{Hg} + 73.2\%~\text{Au}$ (around 18 carat) (disallowing all radioactive elements)
- $\text{Ag}\to 70.5\%~^{58}\text{Fe} + 2.0\%~^{62}\text{Ni} + 27.5\%~\text{Au}$
- $\text{Cu}\to 51.1\%~^{56}\text{Fe} + 44.5\%~^{62}\text{Ni} + 4.4\%~\text{Au}$
- $\text{Fe}\to 4.8\%~^{54}\text{Fe} + 95.2\%~^{56}\text{Fe} + 0.1\%~\text{Au}$
- $\text{Al}\to 0.9\%~\text{H} + 76.1\%~^{40}\text{Ca} + 23.1\%~\text{Au}$
- $\text{H}_2\text{O}\to 15.6\%~\text{H} + 62.4\%~^{40}\text{Ca} + 22.1\%~\text{Au}$
- $\text{Air}\to 8.3\%~\text{H} + 49.6\%~^{40}\text{Ca} + 42.1\%~\text{Au}$ (10 carat)
Zero-energy means that each of these methods take zero energy input or output. However, you will still need a way to purify the gold afterwards (perhaps magical separation?).
Note that elements closer to iron have worse yields, since they have much higher binding energies. Due to the zero-energy criterion, most of the mass must be turned into nearby high-energy isotopes to offset the creation of relatively low-energy gold.
Transmutations between nearby elements work better, like mercury and gold. Another example, turning air (nitrogen and oxygen) into diamond (carbon) and ruby or sapphire (corundum/aluminum oxide):
- $\text{Air}\to 1.5\%~\text{D} + 0.03\%~^{10}\text{Be} + 98.5\%~\text{C}$
(The beryllium changes to plutonium-244, uranium-238, and mercury-204 in roughly the same proportion as we increase the minimum half-life)
- $\text{Air}\to 1.7\%~\text{H} + 6.4\%~\text{D} + 91.9\%~\text{Al}_2\text{O}_3$
Note that since aluminum has one more neutron than an even split (like nitrogen and oxygen), in this case we have to dump excess protons instead of excess neutrons.
A possible explanation for the magical transmutation could be a sort of probability manipulation, forcing the quantum-mechanical waveform to collapse into the desired state. How you justify your magic is ultimately up to you though.
Update
While playing around with my code, I stumbled across a much more efficient transmutation: turning mercury into platinum:
- $\text{Hg}\to 0.32\%~\text{n} + 0.04\%~\text{H} + 99.6\%~\text{Pt}$
This produces three nines fine platinum (999.6‰ purity after neutrons escape, same as bullion) with a small amount (0.038%) of hydrogen impurity. You don't have to worry about hydrogen embrittlement with platinum, so you can use it as-is, or smelt the transmuted metal into bars (unfortunately you can't cast bars by pouring the mercury into molds, since it will shrink by 37% during the transmutation process). This method produces a burst of thermal neutrons, but you should be able to block those with water shielding.