First some background reading on Henry Wu's worldview. Page 123 in my copy:
[Wu] paced the living room, pointed to the monitors. "I don't think we should kid ourselves. We haven't re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we've done is reconstruct the part — or at least a version of the past. And I'm saying we can make a better version."
"Better than real?"
"Why not?" Wu said. "After all, these animals are already modified. We've inserted genes to make them patentable, and to make them lysine dependent. And we've done everything we can to promote growth, and accelerate development into adulthood."
Hammond shrugged. "That was inevitable. We didn't want to wait. We have investors to consider."
"Of course. But I'm just saying, why stop there? Why not push ahead to make exactly the kind of dinosaur that we'd like to see? One that is more acceptable to visitors, and one that is easier for us to handle? A slower, more docile version for our park?"
Hammond frowned. "But then the dinosaurs wouldn't be real."
"But they're not real now," Wu said. "That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality here." He shrugged helplessly. He could see he wasn't getting through. Hammond had never been interested in technical details, and the essence of the argument was technical. How could he explain to Hammond about the reality of DNA dropouts, the patches, the gaps in the sequence that Wu had been obliged to fill in, making the best guesses he could, but still, making guesses. The DNA of the dinosaurs was like old photographs that had been retouched, basically the same as the original but in some places repaired and clarified, and as a result— [...]
With that in mind, here's page 208 in my copy (just a little more than halfway through the book), some time after Grant has first brought up the idea of frog DNA being relevant:
[Wu] still wasn't clear about why Grant thought frog DNA was important. Wu himself didn't often distinguish one kind of DNA from another. After all, most DNA in living creatures was exactly the same. DNA was an incredibly ancient substance. Human beings, walking around in the streets of the modern world, bouncing their pink new babies, hardly stopped to think that the substance at the center of it all — the substance that began the dance of life — was a chemical almost as old as the earth itself. The DNA molecule was so old that its evolution had essentially finished more than two billion years ago. There had been little new since that time. Just a few recent combinations of the old genes — and not much of that.
When you compared the DNA of man and the DNA of a lowly bacterium, you found that only about 10 percent of the strands were different. This innate conservatism of DNA emboldened Wu to use whatever DNA he wished. In making his dinosaurs, Wu had manipulated the DNA as a sculptor might clay or marble. He had created freely.
[Wu runs a computer search for Rana DNA among the dinosaurs.]
The result was clear: all breeding dinosaurs incorporated rana, or frog, DNA. None of the other animals did. Wu still did not understand why this had caused them to breed. But he could no longer deny that Grant was right. The dinosaurs were breeding.
So to answer your question directly (in-universe, in Henry Wu's worldview): sure, "dinosaurs are more similar to birds than to reptiles" in body shape and whatnot, but this is just an artifact of the human-scale world. At the molecular level, it simply doesn't matter to Wu where the DNA comes from, as long as it looks about right and makes the thing work like it should. One molecule is just as good as another. Insisting that each snippet of DNA come "originally" from an animal that's close to dinosaurs on the archaic Tree of Life is just as ridiculous as insisting that the H2O you drink come "originally" from an artesian aquifer in Viti Levu. It's just molecules, people! They're not magic.
(So much so that when frog DNA does turn out to be the key, Wu is completely baffled. He immediately accepts the evidence in front of him, but cannot even guess at an explanation. His philosophy is turned completely upside down — he is confronted, after all, with magic.)
Out-of-universe, I don't know whether many biologists would subscribe to Wu's view about the interchangeability of DNA fragments. To me it seems plausible, but it's certainly also caricatured to make a point. Wu's arrogant reductionism is part of his tragic flaw just as much as John Hammond's childlike idealism is part of his.