From what we've seen of Alpha Zero, the answer appears to be yes. Its games showed it playing gambits where there was no immediate way to reclaim the material. Often, Alpha Zero's compensation was just long-term active piece play (or some positional edge). As an example, see the game posted by Akavall. In that game, Alpha Zero sacrifices a Knight, and just gets long-term compensation for almost the next 20 moves.
Alpha Zero plays more "intuitive chess" because it is a constructivist machine (it learned the game by playing with itself over and over again). None of its strategies were given by its human programmers, meaning that Alpha Zero must have learned "active piece play" is more important than mere material.
Comparatively, constructionist engines like Stockfish and Houdini (which just follow rules given by their human programmers) are unable to play more intuitively, since they're bound by these rules. The moves they choose are based off their evaluations of positions, and these evaluations must follow strict rules. For example, a Knight is worth "3 points", space advantages of x amount are worth "x points". This severely limits the intuitive capabilities of these engines, which is why they don't tend to play "true" sacrifices as often as constructivist engines like Alpha Zero.