Yes, but as you know, such first ascents have (toprope) parenthetically noted in a guidebook with the first lead ascendant's name added if it had been subsequently led. Do you think that's a bad idea?
Once you are experienced enough, you can consistently lead whatever you can top-rope. So, I think the only thing we need to know is whether or not it is a A1, A2, A3, A4, or A5 as far as the protection is concerned. If it is A5 or X than you can top rope it or … solo/lead it.
So I would have to say Yes. I think it is wonderful that we have such an interesting history and I appreciate the added drama that the old ethics has given us, but are all the bolts in New River really worth that notoriety? However and, where would climbing be today as a whole, or individually if we concentrated more on climbing and less on ethics and the ego? I think that it was not until the climbing gym that people started to concentrate more on climbing and physical aptitude. Previously working out in the winter was not always that successful.
I think it all boils down to this. Mathematically, is leading the same as top-rope seconding? And if it is, for the sake of bolts, perhaps style should be a private, rather than a public concern. The only thing we need to know is the grades 5.11 G, PG, R, or X.
But then again, "No", it is not a bad thing in this case. Only in the case where something is only top-roped where no story of climbing with protection can be given, then it should be noted as top-roped. There has to be leading involved if someone is going to grade it in that respect.