Maybe, but the terms "class", "method" and "interface" are more commonly understood than "functor" or "natural transformation".
So for better understanding by the general public it may make sense to offer an explaination in terms of OOP, even if what is described is more FP style than OO style.
Functors are functors, natural transformations are natural transformations; neither has much in common with classes, methods or interfaces. Functors are being used to achieve composition here, but the use of functors is an essential part of the pattern; talking about "composition-oriented programming" would be vague to the point of meaninglessness (every programmer believes they're being compositional), and there simply isn't an OO equivalent of open recursive types as far as I know.
So for better understanding by the general public it may make sense to offer an explaination in terms of OOP, even if what is described is more FP style than OO style.