IMHO, I'd be inclined to say that it is an original record, in that it is not derived from another record. Actually, it's a copy of an original record, but that goes to quality of the record.
I believe that the information is primary, in that the father, who supposedly had first-hand knowledge of the birth, reported it. While the father may not have actually entered the information into the record, that is true of much "primary" information. For instance, the date of birth given in a church baptismal record, when the parents are the informants, is still considered primary, even though the reverend, priest, or church clerk may have actually made the entry.