I've found that it is always helpful, when evaluating a new technique, to step back and ask "what am I trying to accomplish?" or "why am I even doing this?" Doing the wrong thing "better" won't magically make it the right thing; if that's the case, who cares if one technique is better or worse than another?
Is this technique designed so that you can shoot one-handed, or two? Is the gun being switched because you're shooting from cover, or because of some injury?
If shooting with two hands, there's really no need to switch a handgun back and forth. Because the handgun is always centered on your face, which hand is on top has very little bearing on how far you protrude from cover. (This is not the case with a long gun, which would be anchored on the far side of the body. The handgun isn't anchored in any such way.)
If the transfer is being done because of an injury to the strong hand, you have to ask yourself how plausible it is that the strong hand is sufficiently damaged to disallow it to be used shooting, but is still strong enough to hold the gun AND coordinated enough to actually make such a handoff. I think it's far more likely that the gun will be on the ground somewhere, and that you'll have to pick it up with the weak hand. The greater the likelihood, the more training time you should allot to the technique; if the situation isn't plausible, then very little to no time should be spent on it.
If it's to shoot one handed and there is no injury necessitating the transfer, why are you choosing to degrade your shooting ability by electing to use one hand, and then electing to use only the weak hand?