Well, not quite. The Hungarian state, language, etc. derive from a later group of steppe raiders of very similar culture and configuration to the Huns (in terms of being Turko-Mongol styled steppe raiders) and were comparably the terror of Europe for about a century, but modern Hungarian populations are genetically indistinguishable from surrounding populations. Moreover the bulk of the Magyars represented Finno-Ugric speakers originating from the urals and not turkic peoples originating (distantly) from the region of the Mongolian steppe, as Atilla's Huns did. The tribes comprising Attilla's confederation scattered across the steppe across Russia and the Black Sea following the demise of his empire, and their descendants are I believe thought to have comprised part or whole of groups such as the Bulgars, Khazars (both of whom are incidentally much more coherent as turkic steppe raider civilizations based in eastern Europe), and the other notable steppe-barbarian groups.
As the Magyars are known to have allied with and intermarried with various Turkic groups (and there's some speculation that a large part of their military or ruling elite may have been comprised of such) there's probably also a distant Hunnic connection there, but tying the Magyars to the Huns in any real sense is only a little bit less tenuous than tying them to the Scythians (an Iranic group of steppe raiders). [It's worth noting that I'm saying this as a Hungarian- the ethnic historiography and self-identification of that region of Europe is very much tied into delusional national myths on all sides] Honestly given the sizes of typical steppe raider populations relative to the groups they conquered, you probably aren't going to find very much genetically traceable to the Huns etc. in most modern eastern European populations- conquering steppe raiders like the Huns were almost invariably vastly outnumbered by the sedentary peoples they subjugated.
However, what the Huns should truly be taken as representing is not so much the specific short-lived confederation of Attilla as being a general stand-in for the Turko-mongol steppe cultures and peoples and their tremendous impact on Eurasian history. The Mongols of Genghis are perhaps the best-known and most successful eruptions of these peoples across Eurasia, but I suppose because they established a massive and distinct empire and were coherently lead and organized by exceptional generals, they aren't as representative of the general case of these steppe barbarians as the Huns or other more transient groups are. People forget that beyond the Mongols, these peoples were still the terror of Europe and Asia for millennnia, constantly pressuring and sometimes destroying, overrunning, or usurping many of the greatest and most cultured civilizations. Time and time again groups such as the Huns conquered vast swathes of Asia and or swept through the Russian steppe- Avars, Gokturks, Pechenegs, Epthalite Huns, you name them.
The specific nature of the strategic threat posed by these peoples is not at all adequately represented by the standard barbarian spawns in the game, nor is there penchant for forming short-lived empires of great size and occasionally for developing reasonably sophisticated civilizations or cultures (Khazars, Uighurs, Seljuk Turks etc.). Admittedly one could simply have implemented specific groups that actually attained some level of long-term coherency or culture as was obviously done for Western civilizations derived from the flavor of barbarian horde particular to western late antiquity (Germans etc.), but most of those entities save for the Mongols aren't really well known or distinctive in easily represented ways (although this isn't entirely true as the Ottomans and Persians can trace their ancestry to Turkic and Iranian steppe raiders groups as well etc., but they really don't have very distinctive associations with them the in the popular consciousness or, in the case of the Ottomans, at all at the time they actually became a distinct power from the rest of the Turkic factions in Anatolia). Atilla's Huns are the most familiar of the general case of "unwashed all-conquering horse archer mass" (the Mongols again being very much extreme and exceptional) to a western audience owing to their contact with the Roman Empire. Honestly it would probably make more sense to replace the foot-barbarians that spawn with endless hordes of Horse Archers and Keshiks.
tl;dr the Huns can be thought of as representing a pretty big and important general case of Turko-Mongol(-Tungusic -Iranic -Finno-Ugric) horse archer nomad barbarian that habitually conquered large swathes of Eurasia and for the reason of their geographically extensive prominence and power throughout a very large part of Eurasian history. Admittedly it probably would've made more sense to use known place-names from a range of different Turko-mongol empires or tribes (I'm sure that some of the more developed ones could yield something) or just random words that would be plausible as place-names from Hunnic or related languages, but the use of foreign city names does sort of mockingly emphasize the penchant of these peoples (and the Western image of the Huns in particular) for vast and brutal conquest (THEY'VE CONQUERED CITIES YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WERE THERE).
Admittedly I'm not sure if any of this justification went through the developer's heads- after all, the Huns of Atilla are to the Western mind just a pretty iconic steppe raider empire associated with the downfall of one of the powers of antiquity (the Western Roman Empire) most closely associated with Western cultural identity. They're fundamentally a pretty obvious and easily recognizable choice for a more "savage" civ with very strong aggression for the very early game with a distinct military style (owing to the emphasis on using horse archers over conventional infantry).
