Quite often when comparing the Ptolemids to Pharaohs or Hellenistic monarchs the answer is both and sometimes neither.

The "godlike status" of Egyptian Pharaohs should not be overstated, although on a religious and ideological level they were considered to be the divine incarnation of Horus they were not necessarily all-powerful or viewed that way by those around them. Arguably, the Pharaohs who reigned throughout Egypt's Dynastic period did not necessarily wield more power than the Ptolemaic kings, if anything the New Kingdom saw the increased development of administrative and infrastructural powers outside of the king, the most notable being that of the temples. The image of an all-powerful, divine king ruling Egypt absolutely is borne less out of the reality of Egyptian government and society and more out of a romanticised picture of a despotic, wealthy land that has been reinforced by the fact that the majority of surviving art and literature was designed to promote the ideal of kingship on a divine and symbolic level (i.e. Temple reliefs and statuary, and other commemorative contexts). While on an ideological and theological level the Pharaoh was both divine and human, he was also considered and described as a mortal and the very real limits of his power were based not in his authority but in his ability to exert power over the land, and especially the people. Regional and local elites and authorities for the most part carried out their duties with a level of autonomy while being directly incentivised and influenced by the king. The complicated Ptolemaic bureaucracy was built out of and around existing methods of bureaucratic control, these bureaucratic mechanisms by their very nature both enabled the Pharaoh to make use of the resources within Egypt while taking a measure of direct control out of his hands. Later Egyptian Pharaohs, like Psamtik, Nectamebo and even Ramses II ruled an Egypt that was in many ways more similar to that of the Ptolemies than that of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs.

Of course, equally important to assessing the realities of the position held by the Ptolemies, is understanding how they viewed themselves. The Ptolemids did assume the Greek title of Basileus or king and the corresponding feminine title Basilissa on coinage, statuary and Royal decrees in Greek and outside of Egypt they assumed the role of a Hellenistic king without exception. However the Greek influence actually has little to do with the Ptolemaic tradition of queens reigning, actually out of the Hellenistic kingdoms the Ptolemaic dynasty is the only one to have women as sole rulers and even the Seleucids' queen regents were few and far between. Although Macedonia in particular has several examples of strong willed or politically active women, like Alexander's mother Olympias for instance, there are no examples of ancient Macedon being ruled by a woman, so it is very difficult to figure out just how much of an influence Hellenic traditions had on the role of women in the Ptolemaic dynasty but there is certainly not a continuous tradition of queenship that can be traced from the Argeads to the Ptolemids. The role of the queen as wife and sister to the king, and her role as occasionally assuming full power in the absence of a strong or popular king, is somewhat novel to Hellenistic Egypt as opposed to Greece or the Hellenistic Near East. I talked about the Hellenistic side of the dynasty here.

Whether this makes it a clear continuation of Egyptian practice is similarly unclear, but I would generally consider it has having organically and independently developed by the Ptolemaic dynasty by drawing on examples from Dynastic Egypt. From the dynastic cult, which equated Ptolemaic rulers with Greek and Egyptian deities and deified them posthumously, and the co-rulership established by Ptolemy II and Arsinie II, and the precedent of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I before them in being crowned Pharaoh, the Ptolemaic dynasty very heavily relied on Egyptian political and theological rhetoric and tradition to maintain their rule and as time went on the relationship between the Ptolemaic rulers and the Egyptian elites seems to have only grown stronger. The Ptolemids identified with Egyptian deities such as Amon-Re, Osiris, Horus or Isis and Hathor, as well as claiming divine descent. Although by this time these deities were equated with their Greek equivalents and sometimes Hellenised in depictions, they were also depicted frequently in traditional Egyptian form.

Cleopatra in particular identified with the Egyptian goddess Isis who was by this time considered the queen of heaven and was the divine consort of Osiris and mother of Horus. You can see her depicted as Isis in this full length statue of Cleopatra as the goddess Isis. In addition to this she was also associated with the Egyptian fertility goddess Hathor. The identification with Isis did extend to the Hellenistic Near East and Mediterranean where it was conflated with the deities Aphrodite, Venus, and Ishtar but again by this time the Egyptian pantheon was seen as analogous to Hellenistic and Roman pantheons in many respects. (See also Cleopatra depicted making an offering to Isis ). Cleopatra was considered a divine ruler in the sense that all Pharaohs were, and was technically the divine co-regent and consort of Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV, and Ptolemy XV. Her relationship with Ptolemy XV (Caesarion) took on a special significance because it was compared and equated with the relationship between Isis and her son Horus which is shown on coinage and on the famous temple scenes at the Dendera Temple Complex depicting Cleopatra with her son and heir Caesarion in traditional Egyptian style.

That said, it seems more like you wanted to know if it would not be more correct to consider Cleopatra a queen than a Pharaoh given her time period and cultural background which was far removed from the Ramesside period.

The thing is, although Egypt's ancient history covers around 3,000 years of intense cultural and political development, there are significant areas of continuity that make it reasonable to consider thousands of years of successive Pharaonic dynasties from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period. This is in spite of drastic variations between centralisation of power and administration, the Pharaoh's place in relation to the divine pantheon and the Pharaoh's autonomy in relation to regional elites, which varied dramatically as Egypt saw itself conquered or partitioned by foreign powers or internal strife, and underwent internal social and political changes over time. What ties together the Egyptian dynasties of the old Kingdom, the Ramesside dynasty, and the Kushite dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period, is a shared seat of power within Egypt and a continuity in Pharaonic ideology, iconography and divine kingship that is reflected in the art, literature, architecture and propaganda associated with their reigns.

The Ptolemaic dynasty, and Cleopatra in particular, did incorporate those long-standing traditions into the legitimisation and identification of their dynasty in Egyptian, monumental, religious and propagandistic contexts within Egypt. For instance in the , and the multitude of other reliefs depicting the Ptolemids as Pharaohs such as the reliefs of Ptolemy XII Cleopatra's father at Kom Ombo. Statuary and busts of the Ptolemaic rulers show a degree of variance with some being examples of Hellenistic styles (see this bust of Ptolemy XII ), while others show clearly Egyptian traditions in style and motifs such as this image of Ptolemy II. Of course iconography alone does not make a Pharaoh as even Roman Emperors were depicted or referred to as Pharaohs in some Egyptian contexts, but it goes much deeper with the Ptolemaic rulers as they deliberately and consistently assumed the role of Pharaoh while carefully cultivating the associated status that entailed.

Whether or not Cleopatra can be considered a "true" Pharaoh is frequently debated and can be contested, however it is certain that she presented herself as, and was considered by many to be, a Pharaoh just as she presented herself as and was considered by many to be a queen, so it would be arrogant in the extreme to attempt to say definitively that she was either to the sole exclusion or even the exception of the other.