No. A recount, while almost never perfect, is going to be more accurate. That's because, while there are going to be human errors, a recount is a process where an error would have to get by multiple counters and observers who are verifying the same information. Also, there are a lot of machine-reading issues where many votes are not counted at all that should have been ("undercounts") where examination of the ballot can show clear intent, or, if there was a machine tabulation error, that machine tabulation error would not affect a human being.
That, of course, assumes a hand recount. In many states, their "recount" process consists of feeding the same ballots through the same machine readers, or, with electronic voting machines, looking at the tapes and verifying totals. Both of those, but especially the second, are a complete farce and will only repeat any problems, and should not technically be considered a "recount."
This is why there was such an outcry for some kind of paper trail on electronic machines when they were first implemented without them, especially after demonstrations of how insecure they were came to light - so they could be hand-verified, if necessary. However, many laws are built so they actually discourage the most accurate means of recounting, ostensibly for considerations of time and expense (not necessarily malice or shenanigans).
Some recount laws are so antiquated (Michigan comes to mind), that, if there is a major discrepancy between ballots cast and the final total, those ballots are EXCLUDED from recounts.
Detroit News: Half of Detroit's Ballots May Be Ineligible For Recount