No. It’s not.
A development of doctrine is quite different from a change of doctrine. Take the real presence, for example; the Catholic Church has not always held explicitly to transubstantiation. The early church held to an objective presence and believed the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, but it did not make the explicit distinction between “substance” and “accidents”. This is a later development of doctrine, but it doesn’t alter the doctrine in any way; it simply defines it in clearer terms.
Woud you accuse the church of “changing doctrines” when it dogmatically defined transubstantiation?
Oh yeah… that would just do wonders for the whole “evangelization” thing. Aging hippies are free to sit on their arses, but the rest of us will keep spreading the word as Christ commanded.