The question is the wrong way round, in a way. It isn't about the proportion of Muslims worldwide who are affected. I'll try to show why by crude analogy.
Suppose I pass a law that says all (women/Jews/Chinese) are to have a law apply just to them. We would clearly agree that was racist/sexist, even if only a tiny proportion of women/Jews/Chinese worldwide were affected. So the proportion of a group affected doesn't mean much when deciding if a law is discriminatory. So we can't say a ban on these countries is/isn't racist by calculating the % of Muslims worldwide affected. It just isn't a relevant calculation.
Russia arrests a human rights lawyer or protester, and we decide that is a human rights violation, we don't work out how many lawyers or protesters aren't arrested to figure that out. So again, comparing how many are/aren't affected doesn't tell us if an action is discriminatory.
In the US, the supreme court has long upheld that "a tax on yalmukas [a Jewish head covering] is a tax on Jews" - a ban on a Muslim country may well be "seen through" as a ban on Muslims, by long standing US law. The distinction between banning predominantly Muslim countries' citizens, and banning Muslims, is not a distinction with much weight in US law.
You need to look at what proportion of that country's citizens are Muslims, what proportion of those affected are Muslims compared to what proportion of visitors in general are Muslims, and so on. Those will be more helpful percentages.