Nope. The point is to produce a better product.

Agreed. I think I phrased it poorly.

What I meant to suggest is that changing code for the primary purpose of increasing coverage is probably not the best thing to be doing, particularly if it makes the resulting product worse. Fixing defects or cleaning up code smells uncovered while working to improve coverage is -- as you pointed out -- part of the point of doing coverage testing in the first place.

Since I generally try to follow test-driven development, I aim for 100% at the start and decreasing coverage is a helpful sign that my coding has gotten ahead of my testing.