What you are proposing is closer to a heuristic for searching than a reward for RL. This is a blurred line, but generally if you start analysing the problem yourself, breaking it down into components and feeding that knowledge into the algorithm, then you place more emphasis on your understanding of the problem, and less on any learning that an agent might do.
Typically in a RL formulation of a simple board game, you would choose rewards or +1 for a win (the goal), 0 for a draw, and -1 for a loss. All non-terminal states would score 0 reward. The point of the RL learning algorithm is that the learning process would assign some nominal value to interim states due to observing play. For value-based RL approaches, such as Q learning or Monte Carlo Control, the algorithm does this more or less directly by "backing up" rewards that it experiences in later states into average value estimates for earlier states.
Most game-playing agents will combine the learning process, which will be imperfect given the limited experience an agent can obtain compared to all possible board states, with a look-ahead search method. Your heuristic scores would also make a reasonable input to a search method too - the difference being you may need to search more deeply using your simple heuristic than if you used a learned heuristic. The simplest heuristic would just be +1 for a win, 0 for everything else, and is still reasonably effective for Connect 4 if you can make it search e.g. 10 moves ahead.
The combination of deep Q learning and negamax search is quite effective in Connect 4. It can make near perfect agents. However, if you actually want a perfect agent, you are better off skipping the self-learning approach and working on optimised look-ahead search with some depth of opening moves stored as data (because search is too expesnive in the early game, even for a simple game like Connect 4).