No. Xeno3 is a better game, there's a reason it's got better critical reception, as well as from those who played it, it's just not nearly as favourable conditions for it.
Xenoblade 2 got released in a time where the switch market was way less crowded. It wasn't the fourth similar styled game released on the system*. Most iterative sequels do worse on the same hardware, I swear, some of you are going to have absolute implosions where TOTK does better out the gate but then have apparently worse legs long term.
The only argument that they did something wrong in making the game is that, on top of being iterative in gameplay, Xenoblade 2 was advertised as a completely separate game with no need to have played the first, while 3 was explicitly described as the future of the world's of 1/2. Regardless of whether that's true or not, you're already limiting your audience by doing that to people that have played the previous games, which can hurt growth.
And in any case, those legs (90k on one quarter...) are better than 250k in a year, if it holds as consistently as 2 did...
*No, Pokémon is not the same case, because if ScarVio was just SwSh 2 it'd have done way worse than it did. That series finally got the shakeup people expected out of the game on switch in the first place.