No, Claudius' involvement in the conquest in Britain was just that, funding and ordering the very action of it to happen. Suetonius tells us about it:

Having marched by land from Marseilles to Gessoriacum, 4 he thence passed over to Britain, and part of the island submitting to him, within a few days after his arrival, without battle or bloodshed, he returned to Rome in less than six months from the time of his departure, and triumphed in the most solemn manner (Suet. Cl. 17).

Claudius' determination to conquer Britain was mostly selfish, as his casus belli quite literally was to give himself the victories needed to justify him carrying the title imperator - something he refused to accept when the senate first voted him the imperial honours, since he hadn't actually won any battles at that point. After "winning" in Britain, he simply returned home to focus on other imperial tasks, and left Britain to his generals.

Britain was a target by Julius Caesar for its involvement in the conquest of Gaul (on the enemy side). Since then, no emperor had bothered with the island, all three of them having their focus elsewhere. Britain did contain resources that were attractive to the Romans (apart from slaves), but the cost of conquest combined with the remoteness of the lands made them unattrative targets when manpower was needed elsewhere.

Ironically, the conquest of Britain is, at least in my opinion, one of the few bad things that Claudius did during his reign. Overall, Claudius proved to be a very good emperor, and for the first decade, the war in Britain went well for the Romans, but then Boudicca happened (admittedly after Claudius' reign). The conquest of Britain required far too much manpower though, because normally Rome could get away with leaving small garrisons of soldiers in conquered areas, but the conquest of Britain saw around 40.000 Roman soldiers during the 1st century (and increased even more during the 2nd when other emperors focused on the island).