Unrealistic demands for minor revisions

My guess is that the editor didn't read the reports carefully and didn't notice that the reviewers suggested significant extra work.

Contact the editor and point this out, and give an estimate of how much time you will need for revisions. (Try to be conservative in this estimate so you don't put yourself in an unnecessary crunch.)

It's up to you to decide whether to actually do some or all of the extra work requested. For anything you don't do, write a response explaining why you don't believe the extra work is warranted. (You might want to consult with colleagues to get another opinion.) The editor and reviewers will reconsider the paper and decide if it is acceptable with the changes you made.

The editor has said that they want to publish your paper. This means that having your paper in this journal is of mutual benefit to you and the journal. The editor is not going to capriciously change their mind and reject your paper.

If you can't reasonably implement the requested changes in a week, then it's completely reasonable to ask for an extension. Just explain that some of the requested changes require whatever it is that they require and give an estimate of how long that will take. It's possible that the editor will have some good reason to say no but it's overwhelmingly likely that they'll give you more time or they'll ask you to just make the changes that really are "editorial" and skip the others.

Just ask.