Probably. Some mutations are good, some bad. If it provides selective advantage for ATP exchange then over a long period of time that mutation could become prevalent if that ATP exchange could become more common if it meant more breeding.

It’s worth noting that modern humans don’t necessarily rely on ATP exchange for “breeding” at this point. The movie idiocracy is an extreme example. But our survival selection method is pretty close to societally based at this point

Edit: for most of human history there are probably some tangible selective advantages to some mitochondrial mutations, just like anything else. I don’t have any specifics

Quite a few of these mutations impact mitochondria in a negative way. For example the LHON mutation often causes blindness, but only in about 30% of carriers (so there's probably some environmental or non-mitochondrial DNA factor that "activates" it).

Since cells have multiple mitochondria, and since the non-mitochondrial DNA rules most of the cell, it can be tricky to determine what any mutation does and having it may not cause a change for all carriers. So it won't have as strong a selection pressure as it may intuitively seem, and any fitness improvement may still take a long time to spread thru a population.