This may look like a violation of the DRY rule initially, but I'd argue that "similar, and even identical, code" isn't necessarily "repetition" if it does something different or is able to change independently. And in the case of view models, the code is defining what the "client" sees, not necessarily the entities and operations the business talks about. So, you're often revealing models to the client or interface that are sort of "incidentally identical." You may change either the business rules and terms or the end user terminology independently of each other.
So, I'd turn the question back on you. If the domain changes, is it acceptable for the "version 1" clients to continue using the old interfaces? Will you ever reveal terms or operations in the interface that aren't part of the "core business rules?" And vice versa?
Those sort of questions in mind, if your view's "function" is strictly to reveal the underlying domain model, yes, this seems like it violates the DRY rule.
Also bear in mind, exposing a view that changes more naturally with model changes can also be accomplished in some languages with member attributes and reflection. (Or with less repetition through other feats of cleverness... But, "cleverness" often fails to justify the repetition it spares you.)