It could be taken that way, honestly (there is a section subtitled "The One Will and the One Act"), and I think it is likely to be so taken by EO who do not understand miaphysite Christology. It is important to reiterate here that why we are "mia" physites and not "mono" physites is that the oneness that is spoken about in Christological discussions among OO is not a simple oneness such that we could say that Christ has only one of the two natures spoken of by both OO and EO in different contexts (we could not say, for example, that Christ is solely divine and not human), or in any way a hybrid or mixed nature (this can be confirmed by simply reading the liturgical texts that we employ, particularly the priest's confession in the Coptic Basil). Rather it is one nature in which, at their union in the incarnation, the humanity and divinity are united inseparably in the person of Jesus Christ, such that it is no longer appropriate or even possible to treat the humanity and the divinity as being in any way separate or separatable (as is prayed in the Syrian Fraction [emphasis added]: "One is Emmanuel our God who cannot be divided after the union
; there is no division into two natures - thus we believe, thus we confess, and thus we affirm that this body belongs to this blood, and this blood belongs to this body"). It is a deeply incarnational Christology, and nothing that follows from it can be understood without first understanding this context in which later writings are composed.
Given that, it is written in the referenced booklet of HH Pope Shenouda (I don't know the translation or page number, since I only have it in PDF form):
We believe in One Will and One Act:
Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also
each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen
by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever
between the will and the action of both.
Again, this could be looked at as "monothelitism", but only if one did not understand the Christology of the Church -- that the one nature is not divinity without humanity or humanity without divinity. In fact, even in the quote itself, you can see a sort of "round about" meeting with Chalcedonianism that I would think EOs, if they are willing not to cast us immediately into the flames for having written "We believe in one will", would be most receptive to and hopefully likely to agree with, particularly when HH writes "What the Divine nature chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever [sic] between the will and the action of both." This strikes me as being essentially the same as the explanations I have read from EO writers, historical and modern, concerning this controversy: Christ is not schizophrenic, and for those who believe in dyophysitism, this is evidenced by the fact that His human will is in perfect unity with His divine will. And for the miaphysites, this is even less of a problem, as there is no sense in which He may divided such that the human and the divine would be considered to operate separately.
I hope this clears things up, and if I have written anything incorrect I invite my OO brothers and sisters to correct me on this account. (I have not read much from OO that touches upon this topic, probably because we were out of the picture by the time the Chalcedonians solved this amongst themselves, so there could be something I'm misunderstanding here.)