Sometimes, but it’s usually a compromise rather than a true replacement.

Using video avoids many mechanical shutter actuations, and some cameras/firmware can even record at very low frame rates for timelapse-style capture. However, standard video has important downsides versus still-photo timelapse:

• much lower resolution than full still images
• compressed footage rather than RAW stills
• less flexibility for color grading and exposure correction
• limited control over long exposure / motion blur look
• extra post-processing if you record normal frame-rate video and discard most frames

A key difference is exposure time: classic timelapse often uses longer exposures to create smoother motion blur, while normal video frames are typically exposed much more briefly.

For the shutter-wear concern, camera shutters are consumable parts and are generally built for substantial use. If timelapse is something you do regularly, it may be more practical to use the camera as intended, or dedicate an older/used body to timelapse work.

So yes, video can work if your final output only needs video resolution and you accept the quality trade-offs. If you want maximum image quality and editing latitude, shooting stills remains the better timelapse method.