That is a difficult question, I suppose it depends upon how you mean it.
On a genetic level male would still be absolutely correct and indeed in casual conversation they could still be identified as male (even if only as a courtesy to the individual involved). However, it is not wrong to say that an object that loses it's defining trait can no longer definitionally be said object (suppose a motorized vehicle were to lose it's motor, it would no longer be a motorized vehicle). A definition dependent upon a trait and a lack of said trait are assuredly mutually exclusive.
Now you may be saying 'but anon, does not that mean that a female-to-male individual would then be male'? Nay, the surgery as it stands does it's best to instantiate maleness into an individual but it is not confer it. In a similar vein, one may call a trans person by their preferred gender, but that does not make it true.