I think this will solve without Rouché's Theorem.
STEP 1: Lets prove, first, that $f(\Bbb{D}) \supset D(0,1/2)$. Indeed, for $w \in D(0,1/2)$, if we suppose that $f(z)-w$ has no roots in $\Bbb{D}$, then the function $G_w(z) = \frac{1}{f(z)-w}$ is analytic on $\Bbb{D}$ and well-defined. By the Maximum Modulus Principle, we must have that (as $|f| = 1$ on the boundary)
$$ \frac{1}{|f(z)-w|} \le \frac{1}{1-|w|} < \frac{1}{|w|} $$
And, from the same Theorem, we have that, if equality is attained on $\Bbb{D}$,then $G_w$, and consequently $f$, must be constant. But $f$ has at least one zero, because $\frac{1}{|f|} \le 1$ on the boundary, which shows that, as $f$ is nonconstant, $f(z_0)=0$ for some $z_0 \in \Bbb{D}$.
Taking this $z_0$ above, we see that we must have a contradiction, and, thus, the claim follows.
STEP 2: We iterate the process. Using the same argument, if $w \in D(0,1- 2^{-k-1})$, then
$$ \frac{1}{|f(z)-w|} \le \frac{1}{1-|w|} < 2^{k+1} $$
For $z$ on the boundary, and, by induction hypothesis, as $f(\Bbb{D}) \supset D(0, 1 - 2^{-k})$, then there exists $z_0, w_0$ such that $f(z_0) = w_0 $ and $w_0-w < 2^{-k-1} $. Repeating the argument given above, we have a contradiction.
Therefore, we may conclude that, $\forall \; k \in \mathbb{N}$, we have that $f(\Bbb{D}) \supset D(0,1-2^{-k}) \Rightarrow f(\Bbb{D}) \supset \Bbb{D}$.