It is literally impossible to have an emotionless AI. Your question is therefore based on false assumptions.
Hollywood has taught people that there's a difference between "logic" and "emotion", and that machines operate on "logic", rather than emotion. The problem is there are two completely different definitions of "logic" here. One is exactly synonymous with emotion, and that's the one your AI absolutely, positively must have to function.
Any AI with the ability to question human emotion would also have to have high-level, rational logic, with which it could model human emotions and compare them to its own. How it would view human emotions is greatly dependent on how similar ours are to its.
Emotion is nothing more than the basic impulses that drive us to act. It's not magic. It's not a human-only condition. It's not high level. It's not "chemistry" vs "electronics". It's just low-level logic gates that interpret inputs and convert them to outputs.
Any agent with the capacity to interact with the environment must have low-level logic. It's precisely what gives them the capacity to interact. Since low-level logic is emotion, that means any agent with the capacity to interact must have emotion.
Humans have emotions, yes. So do birds, mice, cockroaches and Roombas.
But there's another definition of "logic". That's high-level reasoning. Wisdom. Sapience. Rational thought. Whatever word you use, it's the capacity to learn from our past, model the world around us, make predictions about the future, and decide which actions give us the best future outcome.
Humans have the capacity for this high-level logic. We used it to come up with science, mathematics, etc. We use it to model the world. To build machines. To make decisions that might be inefficient in the short term to gain more in the long term.
But the only way we can decide what's "good" or "bad" is by comparing possible solutions to what's desirable. What's desirable (or not) is entirely based on our low-level, emotional logic. There is no "pure logic", no absolute truth, no end game that all intelligent beings are required to pursue.
An AI could potentially be capable of rational logic, but doesn't have to be. However, an AI cannot possibly exist without emotional logic.
Any AI capable of rational logic (and, therefore, capable of "viewing" human emotions to begin with), would be perfectly capable of analyzing humans to model our behavior. Just like we could model it.
Humans have the advantage that even if we can't explain our feelings, we can empathize with other humans, and therefore "understand" even when we don't truly know what's going on. But an AI doesn't necessarily have that same capacity.
A very advanced AI might see us as primitive and easily predict our actions, while a less advanced AI might have trouble understanding us precisely. The less human-like the AI is, the harder it is to understand us.
But if it's smart enough to question our emotions, it's smart enough to at least get a basic understanding of them.
Sometimes, when we think of "emotions", we're including the extra sensory inputs humans feel, that another rational entity might not.
If I'm hungry, I get a little inkling that I'm hungry. Then my stomach starts sending aching sensations. Then there's physical pain. Etc.
If I'm tired, my skin feels like it has sand on it. My blood pressure changes. My heart rate tries to slow. My eyes are difficult to keep open. Etc.
These perceptions are a natural consequence of the complex machinations that allow our biology to function. But a non-human entity doesn't inherently need to feel their skin crawling when it's cold and humid, even if that's a less-than-ideal situation to be in.
So these "feelings" might be alien to a non-human. They might find it weird to think about a "gut reaction" or an "itchy trigger finger". But they wouldn't think about basic desires and impulses as being weird or alien, because they'd have those things too.
To "feel" literally refers to tactile sensations. But in a more general sense it means to perceive.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have tactile sensations, so it wouldn't necessarily "feel" in that sense. But it would necessarily have some form of perceptions in order to interact with the outside world.
That is, all AI must at least have something analogous to sensory feeling, even if they don't have literal feeling.
As such, even if an AI doesn't connect the same sensations to emotions we do, it would at least be capable of understanding the concept of perception, and knowing that our emotions are linked to our perceptions in ways its are not.
Whether it views our emotional feelings as useful or not depends greatly on how advanced it is compared to us. And how connected its emotions are to its perceptions. So it's impossible to say for sure, but it would likely view some feelings as more useless, and others as more useful.
Any AI is absolutely required to have low-level, emotional logic to exist. It would, therefore, see human emotions as being analogous to its own emotions.
An AI is not required to have high-level, rational logic, but won't have the capability to compare its emotions to human emotion unless it does.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have the same sensations we have, even if it has the same basic emotion. As such, it might consider "emotional feelings" odd or unusual.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have the ability to "feel" in the tactile sense, but would necessarily have some kind of perception directly analogous to feeling so it can perceive the world around it.
The AI would tend to perceive human emotions antithetical to its own goals as more "useless", those neutral as "meh", and those sympathetic as "useful". But any reasonably-intelligent AI would at least be able to understand how an emotion could be useful to our goals.