I would say because Trent stresses the importance of the recipient actually desiring it, I would say the answer is yes. The baptism is valid but sacrilegious. It would do the recipient no good if he were to die before converting to the Catholic faith.

Trent's Catechism:

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire
and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be
administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual
without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

No, someone who has the use of reason must consent to receive a sacrament and intend to receive it in order for it to be valid.

No. Forced baptism by any means is invalid by defect of intent. 

So, if one does not intend to receive it, it's invalid simpliciter.  If some other dispositions are lacking, e.g. secretly doesn't believe in the Church (doing it for, say, social reasons) or isn't repetent of sin (planning on continuing living in sin, for instance), etc. ... then the Sacrament is valid, in so far as it confers the Baptismal character, but it does not confer sanctifying grace (remission of sins, justification).  For the fomer, the Sacrament would be done absolutely, i.e. unconditionally ... unless, as St. Thomas stated, the intention was doubtful.  In the latter case, the individual could go to Confession to then receive the justification (forgiveness of sins, sanctifying grace) that should have come with the initial reception of the Sacrament.