Yes, that's a famous, or, rather, infamous example among the casuists ... and I doubt anything even remotely like this ever happened.  Assuming he wasn't insane, and this was a human act ...

this would be invalid, not simply an invalid Mass, but an invalid consecration, meaning no Blessed Sacrament ... quite simply because he wasn't intending to DO what the Church does.  Church intends for there to be a Rite celebrated in a solemn manner.  Nobody would confuse this activity with something the Church intends to DO.  It's like if you were to see an actor in a play performing the ritual that normally accompanies the Sacrament of Baptism.  Due to the context, they're clearly not intending to do what the Church does, but are intending to ... put on a play.

I would compare that with an example that would be entirely benign in its intent, but still forbidden by canon law, such as a priest who is tending to someone who needs Viaticuм, but he has no way to get the Blessed Sacrament and doesn't have time or wherewithal to offer an entire Mass, even a rapid-fire, bare-bones sacrifice.  He has some bread (or perhaps wine) close at hand that would otherwise be valid matter, and needing Viaticuм is an entirely legitimate reason, nonetheless, he still may not do it, even if, arguendo, he could consecrate validly.  The dying person will just have to do without Viaticuм.  Viaticuм is not absolutely necessary for salvation.