No, I don't think so.

Please Read the FAQ. 
Frequency is not the only consideration in the design of the Colemak FINAL layout. 

  Of course your welcome to do it for yourself if you feel that strongly about it.

The reason for the C placement, if I recall reading, is primarily to keep it in the same place as in Qwerty, with all the other left hand bottom row characters that also have the embedded CTRL (cut, copy, paste...) actions, so that they remain easy to access.

However, I do not agree with keeping Z,X,C,V,B as they are simply for the sake of maintaining the embedded CTRL actions and here is why:

1. CUT, COPY, and PASTE can be accessed in more than one way besides the CTRL-X,C,V method
2. CUT, COPY, and PASTE are arguably much easier to access via right click on the mouse, since in many cases the mouse has already been just used to highlight the info to be cut, copied, or pasted.  I find this method much faster, much easier on my fingers, and much more sensible, since one's fingers must always stop typing anyway prior to performing these shortcuts.
3. CTRL-X, C, V are awkward reaches involving the pinky, which seems to contradict the layout's goal of minimizing pinky movement by encouraging this method of accessing these shortcuts. (I admit that this is the least important point of my position, yet valid)
4. To keep Z,X,C,V, and B as they are in Qwerty for the sake of maintaining the shortcuts as mentioned, means sacrificing the overall efficiency of a particular layout, which has greater weight, because all the factors (jumps, digraphs, homerow, in/outstroke, load, etc) that make a great layout are measured via the act of typing copy, not via the act of stopping to perform shortcuts, which typically occurs in-between periods of typing copy.

These are my thoughts offered humbly for consideration and comment, not as a mean-spirited attach on Colemak, which I do find fascinating as it stands.  Perhaps other members can shed light on situations that I may have overlooked.  Perhaps there are programs out there that do not allow one to right-click on the mouse to access the shortcuts??  I am of course basing my points primarily on the assumption that the typist is working in a word processor, which is where I believe the majority of typing occurs, apart from using programming software.

Oh, I guess I left out the other reason for keeping Z,X,C,V,B as they are, and that would be for speed of learning the layout.  Although it is true that any layout that maintains a portion of keys in the same place will take less time to learn, I would still question this, because, it say it takes me 20 additional hours to learn a layout that does not maintain these keys in Qwerty position, yet that layout is superior to one that does, I think I would rather log in the extra hours knowing that it will be worth it.  But, I suppose there are many that want a better layout that is quick to pick up.  I suppose that I am just not one of these.  Perhaps it is the difference between going for the best layout, or sacrificing a bit to please the masses that prefer the quick and easy route.  hmm, makes me think of Yoda...."quicker....easier....more seductive.."  hardy-har.

Finally, back to the original proposition, F and C should not necessarily be swapped.  The best layout is not necessarily the layout with less, or least, bottom row load, although Colemak maintains a heavy bottom load.  Even so, I expect Colemak will catch quite a few fish despite all this.
Q

but it's the one I use most often by far.

not to get into other issues, but just to point out not everyone is using the same setup.
On my Macbook there is no right button to click.

on my keyboard it's the command key next to the space bar, so I am using my thumb not my pinky.  Same point as on 2.

One of the major points of Colemak is to optimize the layout with the constraint of moving as few keys as possible and these are low frequency keys and the advantage gained by moving them around is not much and introduces other problems to be solved.   There are many alternative optimal layouts out there with less constraints but the point is they don't do much better than Dvorak if at all with the same drawbacks and usually their creators are constantly fiddling with the layouts since too much of the optimization space they are playing with is pretty flat.  There are simply too little constraints on what is a very high dimensional problem.  I think Shai attacked the problem in a very smart way,  set up as many intelligent restrictions as you can to begin with to try to reduce the variables you actually play with.  I think he did a remarkable job.  No layout is going to satisfy everyone because not everyone will agree on the goals and or even has the same physical setup.