No, this is an anachronistic and frankly just incorrect way of viewing Norse religion.

There was no "Norse Church" with a set pantheon, worship styles, rituals, etc. Instead there were cultic sites, varied rituals, numerous gods, local practices, and shared ideas without a rigid orthodoxy. Religion is at its heart about efficacy in this context, and while one could judge a set of beliefs, practices, or Gods as less "useful" than others, this wouldn't necessitate their destruction. In fact we have both archaeological and textual evidence that points to inroads made by Christianity into Norse belief throughout the Viking Age alongside Norse beliefs because it was seen as useful.

The idea that the Vikings were involved in some sort of crusade or active war with Christianity is in fact the direct result of Christian sources, written by men whose world view was firmly fixed in an idea of Orthodox, singular religious practice.

Our Christian sources (and it should be noted that ALL of our contemporary documents on the Viking Age are Christian, and all are written by churchmen) saw the Viking attacks as at best the activity of wicked pagans trying to destroy Christianity because they were wicked, and at worst a direct plague sent by God to punish the Christians for various religious, social, cultural, and political sins. In essence, when we read these sources uncritically we end up with a world view that supports an idea of religious war because for the Christians this seemed to be what was happening. This makes sense given that religious sites were particularly vulnerable to Viking predation.

But lets look at it from the perspective of the Vikings. The point of raiding is to make money, which can be used to either improve ones life at home, or parlayed into political power (via gift giving and the raising of armies or further expeditions), or even to set up a life in England or Francia or Ireland.

Monasteries and Churches were the major repository for movable wealth at this point (though certainly not the only one, and in fact we see trade towns and cities being sacked with equal fervor). Moreover, monasteries are often located at a distance from other people (thus exposed) and in both cases the inhabitants are non-combatants. You strike at these targets because they are the best, easiest way to make money, not out of any ideological motivation.

This point is supported by the fact that Northmen very quickly assimilated into local cultures and religions when they did settle. They seem to have had little trouble adopting Christian belief, and in fact we see many cases of Viking warleaders accepting baptism when it was advantageous (though how seriously they took their vows, or whether they even really understood them, is an open question). Our various Scandinavian sources (sagas and rune stones) either make no mention of any sort of anti-Christian feeling or are shaped and channeled by pro-Christian sentiment anyway, since all of these sources only come about after the Christianization of Scandinavia.

Were there individual Vikings who hated Christians or who looked at the Christian god and dismissed it as "weak" or less-than useful. Probably. Did this influence the course of Viking Age history, no.