Both the MIT and BSD 3 clause license can be included with both more permissive and less permissive licenses, so long as you adhere to the requirements the licenses lay out.
In both cases, these licenses require that the original copyright notice be included in any distributed codebase, as you have noted in the question.
This does not mean, however, that the entirety of the new codebase need be MIT or BSD 3 Clause licensed - it just means that the portions of the codebase you have included under those licenses remain under those licenses, and this is made known to users of the codebase (by including the copyright notices).
So, to answer your questions directly:
I didnot copied any code just imported them and used it in the code, does that count as redistribution of source code?
Yes, it counts as redistribution of source code. Whether you directly distribute the libraries themselves (by pre-packaging them into a binary) or create a derivative work (by relying on them - this is less clear cut, but in this case there is no downside to considering it), there is redistribution going on, so you need to adhere to the licenses.
However, in this case, adhering to the licenses is trivial.
Do I need to license my GitHub repo as they state?
No. You merely have to include the MIT license and the BSD 3 Clause license in text documents in the repository, with a note as to which parts of the codebase they are applicable.
You do NOT have to license the entire repository or codebase to either one or the other - you can choose the GPL or even a proprietary license if you so wish.