Uh, no.
'Course can't really speak to how it was perceived at the time, but if you are translating a completely different body of manuscripts, then, it can't be a revision of the KJV.
According to John Burgon in his 1883 book, "The Revision Revised", Westcott and Hort did not just revise the English wording, but also did some major revision of the underlying text as well.
W&H were especially fond of the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, which Burgon exposed in his book as seriously flawed and unfit for reference.
The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are in serious disharmony with the Textus Receptus and the KJV, but those 2 manuscripts have found their influence reaching into most if not all modern English translations today.