No, that will not be sufficient proof. It is possible to have cycles which are not face cycles, and you need to show even these cannot have odd length.
I think Rebecca's approach of assuming to the contrary $G$ is not bipartite, and choosing a minimal odd cycle works, if one chooses the odd cycle $C$ such that it's interior is minimal as a subset of the plane (rather than choosing the length to be minimal).
Let $C$ be an odd cycle such that the interior region of $C$ is minimal. Since $C$ is not a face cycle (all faces have even length by assumption), there are edges and / or vertices in the interior of $C$.
Because every face of the graph is bounded by a cycle (by assumption), the graph is 2-connected. Thus there must be 2 distinct vertices $x$ and $y$ of $C$ which can be joined by a path $P: x, u_1, u_2, \dots , u_k, y$ such that every vertex $u_i$ lies strictly in the interior of $C$.
The edges of the cycle $C$ can be divided into 2 edge disjoint paths, both having $x$ and $y$ as their end vertices. Since $C$ has odd length, one of these paths has odd length, and the other has even length. Call the odd and even paths $Q_o$ and $Q_e$ respectively.
If the path $P$ has odd length, then $P \cup Q_e$ is an odd cycle, whose interior is contained entirely in the interior of $C$, a contradiction.
Likewise if $P$ has even length, then the cycle $P \cup Q_o$ again gives us a contradiction.
You can also assume to the contrary that $G$ has an odd cycle. Consider the graph $H$ formed by any odd cycle $C$, and all the stuff in its interior. The interior faces will all be bounded by cycles of even length, and the outer face will be bounded by a cycle of odd length. Thus the sum, over all faces $f$ of $H$, of the number of edges on the boundary of the face $f$, will be odd. However every edge of $H$ lies on the boundary of two faces, and thus gets counted exactly twice in this sum. Hence the sum is even, a contradiction.