One issue that you are likely to encounter when investigating female artists in way is that you are going to be limited by viewing them as 'inside' certain genres (especially if they are recognized as being male dominated, which most are).

Genres were seldom self-attributed and usually were defined by critics writing about a group of artists or a movement long after they had been active. This perhaps is a key point in relation to female artists, in so far as they are not viewed as individuals but as component parts of a whole. If one is to take a more individualistic view of artists as opposed to seeing things in terms of genres then it is likely that individuals will be judged on their own merits as opposed to their coherence or accordance to the genre or group as a whole. Some artistic movements are easy to say there was a clearly defined founder such as Braque or Picasso for the Cubists (that is still not crystal clear), however Impressionism has multiple 'founders' who often at various times differed greatly or even attempted to create or were attributed to different sub-genres such as Seurat's pointillism (although he is still viewed in some regards as an expressionist).

So in response to your first point about female artists as 'founders' of a genre it depends how exact and specific you are seeking to be. One overlooked female artist is Leonora Carrington, who broadly could be placed inside the Surrealist movement, despite not being involved in the main Parisian group, however if you examined her work closer and focused your differentiation of genres then she could be said to have been a pioneer in Magical Realism. However this fails to avoid the greater picture of still seeing things inside of genres. This notion is more limiting, as already mentioned, if you view art as some kind of competition in terms of 'who was the greatest?' or 'what is great art?' these questions immediately are referential to pre-established and accepted art literature and it is therefore difficult to view things outside these terms.

Asking a question such as 'Who could be seen as the female Raphael?' doesn't really work because Raphael is incomparable, not because he is 'great', but because he is unique. There are many examples of women (although primarily from the 1800s on, and that is more of a socio-political point) who have been as you put it: 'pioneers, great and experts', and that is part of their artistic credibility and uniqueness.

Viewing women artists as 'minority artists' is also problematic, as outlined in 'Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists' other 'minority artists' with talk of no Black Impressionists, no great Lithuanian Jazz Pianists ect... Comparing people on different cuturally specific terms is hard as there is an in-built assumption that, firstly people are easily comparable in their artistic expression, secondly that the former category i.e. that which they are being compared to is superior.
Also viewing women artists inside of their own genre (not that you have!) immediately denigrates them into an smaller and more niche off shoot of art in general. The danger there is comparing and considering female artists in 'feminine' or pre-defined terms as opposed to considering them as individuals.

Finally, I just wanted to check what you meant by 'Female Representation'. In your question you make it clear that you mean the proportion and presence of female artists, however there is another side to the question which could be 'How have women been portrayed (represented) in art?' ... This is quite an important but also relevant distinction. In any case I'd recommend (you might know it already) John Berger's 'Ways of Seeing' (on YouTube) especially the one on 'The Nude'.

For Europe from the Renaissance to the 20th century, the short answer is no. The classic treatment is Linda Nochlin's essay, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists." Nochlin's argument is that the reasons are largely institutional and cultural. Women were denied access to fundamental components of artistic training, notably, study of the nude male body, so central to the highest aesthetic pursuits in the visual arts from the Renaissance on in the West. There are exceptions, of course, great women artists like Artemisia Gentileschi, but none of these defined new genres. There were genres in which women specialized--typically portrait and still life, which did not require study of the nude--but these genres were not invented by women. There were institutional elements to this as well; for example the European art academies either did not permit women to join or severely restricted female membership.

The first books of science fiction as a genre are Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1817), her "Roger Dodsworth, the Reanimated Englishman" (1826), and The Mummy! A Tale of the 22nd Century by Jane C. Webb (later Loudon)(1827). Then we have The Last Man by Mary Shelly in 1828 before Honoré Balzac comes up with "The Elixir of Life."

There are a few earlier outliers - the first sf novel is Kepler's Somnium of 1611, but the genre was founded by Shelley, and Webb's reaction to Shelley.

Many sources handwave this off by calling these "gothic fiction" because the term "science fiction" is 20th C, but in that case Verne and Wells aren't early sf, either.