Absolutely not!
Generally speaking, remastering is done to produce a product with better sound quality via better, more advanced electronics.
For example, the early 16-bit CDs were remastered using early digital filters of poor quality vs what is now available.
Remasters can also introduce a product to a new audience - i.e. vinyl for those who have never experienced that format.
Also, High Resolution music files using 24-bit technology gets MUCH closer to the master tape than 16-bit/44Khz CDs.
The Beatles catalog was remastered in 2009 to 24-bit High-Rez downloads...and sound light years better than the original CDs issued.
A few years ago, Sony re-mixed/re-mastered Miles Davis’ iconic jazz album “Kind of Blue” to 24-bit HiRez file and corrected a speed problem in the original 2-channel mix.
In recent years, a few of their albums were re-mixed from the original session tapes then remastered to 24-bit/96Khz files using current state-of-the-art digital products and the sound quality is arguable the best...and I have UK 1st LP pressings of their catalogue and two “Blue Box” sets.
Finally, different engineers can produce different results in terms of sound quality. There are “Golden Ear” engineers and “Tin Eared” engineers - each producing much different end products. Crap sound vs “Real, lifelike” sound.
Sadly, many of the “young” engineers are pushing compression in their remastering projects.
So to answer your question...
Remastering, generally, can provide higher sound quality if done correctly and re-introduce an artist’s products to a new market.
Thanks for the explanation. If you do a search on whether or not remastering is necessary you will find plenty of people who disagree with you but I doubt most of them have your expertise.