No, from the point of view of a roguelike fan, there is a substantial difference between a single run in a roguelike and a single run in a non-roguelike.
Not sure what be a good example of a non-roguelike dungeon crawler is, but when I try non-roguelike RPGs, my usual reaction is "ok, the story is good, but these fights are so uninteresting compared to roguelikes, that thing would be better as a book or movie". Roguelikes have amazing gameplay, basically.
When I try a dungeon crawler such as Enter the Gungeon, Neon Abyss, The Binding of Isaac, etc., I do not find these games interesting either. They do not have this amazing gameplay that roguelikes have. The fact that they are randomized does not change that. A fan of randomized single-character grid tactics is not especially likely to enjoy randomized bullet hell -- they like single-character grid tactics, not randomization.
Something like Slay the Spire is more interesting, because it has substantial RPG and strategy elements. However, randomization is common in strategy games. They do not have the single-character grid tactics aspect that is unique to roguelikes.
While Moonring is still great, even though randomization is diminished compared to a typical roguelike. Roguelike fans do recommend Moonring as an introduction to roguelikes.
So, fans of randomized single-character grid tactics do need a word for this kind of gameplay, and it is much more about single-character grid tactics than about randomness, and they consider the use of "roguelike" for any randomized game to be a marketing nonsense. More specifically:
* It is not consistent. There are lots of games prominently featuring randomization (XCOM, Dominion, Civilization, etc.). How is a "roguelike deckbuilder" like Slay the Spire different from a standard deckbuilder like Dominion?
* It is not consistent in the other direction either. Games are marketed as "roguelikes" if they do not feature randomization (Risk of Rain, Vampire Survivors, etc.)
* Why not just call them "randomized games" instead?
