No, because it means only states with an odd number of EVs would matter.
If it's properly set up then in a state with lets say 10 EVs if candidate A wins 51% and candidate B wins 49% then A would get 6 votes and B would get 4. You just need to do some creative rounding to avoid evenly splitting the EVs in the case of a near tie.
The alternative would be to divide the "House" EVs proportionally and then award the "Senate" EVs to the candidate with the highest vote percentage. It actually creates the same result in a 10 EV state as the above example but I'm not sure if it would work that way for states with more/less than 10 EVs.
As for me, I support this method because it makes it more likely that the popular vote winner will win.
That's not PR. A state with an even number of electoral votes, especially a small state with an even number of electoral votes, couldn't help but split evenly in a PR system (using D'Hondt or Hare-Niemeyer) on a reasonably close result within that state. It's an incredibly bad idea, worse than the current plan.
The only system for electing the President I truly support is nationwide IRV-popular vote. Of course, abolishing the Presidency would be even better.