No, the beasts of the field were created to be fruitful and fill the Earth (Genesis 1:22). They were created prior to Adam, as Angelina points out. Just a bit later, in Genesis 1:28-30, God pronounces man's dominion over the beasts. At that point, I don't know how you can argue that God desired for Adam to find companionship in an animal or that God was setting an animal place precedent. The precedent had already been established in Genesis 1:22.
It's interesting that God literally says "I will make..." (Genesis 2:18) and then parades the animals to Adam. God is very clearly making a theological point here and it, for use of good ole' fashioned bad grammar, ain't about the animals. It's about man relying wholly upon God to provide. Thus, we have the declaration that the two flesh become one in the "mystery" of marriage, because God provided it in this specific way.
I don't think, for one moment, that God thought or was surprised that Adam did not find companionship in animals. The episode of creation is not about animals; Adam already knew their place and knew it wasn't ever as his primary help. God was making a theological point, much more importantly about man and woman.
This is just one of those instances where the spirit of what you're saying is not entirely wrong in the sense that animals should not equal idols. However, you're drawing a theological conclusion that is not implied in the text unless it's read into the text with a preconceived notion. And, you're having to establish other theological errors to make the house of cards stand up, such as distinguishing between titles used interchangeably.
