There have been some flawed conclusions jumped to that could be explained by some degree of unreasoned thinking and justifiable but exaggerated beliefs, but I don't think it's racism or bigotry.
Xenophobia is closer; Chinese wet markets are strange to westerners, it's a marketplace where unusual things occur, it's a bizarre bazaar. But the risk perception of them isn't just explained by it being unfamiliar.
Wet markets are pathogenically high risk, but more so in terms of bacteria than viruses. Bacteria love chunks of dead and dying cells, virus not so much. It's the live animal markets that are the virus nurseries, which may often, but not always be co-housed with a wet market. While viruses are happy to wait for their next host on a piece of meat, they're not necessarily significantly more happy than on other welcoming surfaces or modes of transmission.
The riskiness of these sanitation and cross-contamination practices are common enough that it's part of the dogma of a few religions, as is the idea that snakes are always up to no good. This might be why we jumped to the conclusions that this originated in a wet market, and that a snake was the intermediate host, even though there's reasonable evidence to at least doubt both of these conclusions.