I still think Charles Martel ("The Hammer") would make the most sense for an alternate French leader, as without Charles Martel, Europe and France would not exist as we know it. The Battle of Tours was one of the most important battles ever fought by France.
Charles de Gaulle himself declared the Franks to be the historical founders of what became modern France, so that would make the Charles Martel selection even more significant. One possible exception, would be Normandy France, which was colonized by the Scandinavian Vikings who later intermarried with the Franks to create the Normans. In such a scenario, Rollo of Normandy, could be substituted for Martel.
Given that my direct ancestors were from Lower Normandy, I would gladly support a Norman ruler for France.
That's a completely obsolete vision of history, though, and it has been for half a century now (only far right extremist would agree with what you said).
All historians agree that Charles Martel only beat some raiding parties, or at most just a minor expedition - not a conquest force. The Battle of Poitiers (not Tours) was just a small event in the grand scheme of things, and anyway it's impossible to know what would happen if those raiders were not fought off. It seems rather unlikely the Franks could lose anyway given how greedy and inconsistent the muslim leaders seemed to be - but if the Andalusian really wanted to conquer Aquitaine it would have been very easy to gather more men and retaliate. For several reasons (economic, political), they didn't want to, and anyway that victory in Poitiers didn't stop muslims raids (like in Avignon, Arles etc). In fact, the fight against the saracens were used by Charles Martel to unify lands under his rule and forge new alliances. He waited til Aquitaine begged for help, and then look the land of burgundian and provençal nobles, claiming they were andalusian servants. Charles Martel was certainly a strong Frankish leader, but he was just part of the Frankish cycle of unifications through conquests and politics, and divisions through inheritance. It's not a very important step in the french history.
Then, the Franks are far from being the only founders of modern France. France wouldn't exist without several layers - the most visible ones being the Celts (landscape), the Romans (culture, language, more important in southern France) and the Franks (name, politics, in the northern part of France at least) ; but also a lot of different people in different areas, like Basques in the south-west, Greeks in Massalia, Burgundians in Burgundy, Saxons in Normandy, Jews in the big cities, Flemish in the north, just to give some of the most famous names (but you'd need to also add many others).
Given what you wrote I imagine that you're just not very knowledgeable about the history of France and history in general, so I invite you to inform yourself rather than repeating dubious far-right websites quoting Charles de Gaulle. Sadly the english "history of france" wikipedia page isn't very good, so you'd need to read some general books.
Also, it wouldn't make any sense to have a Norman leader for France, as it simply never happened. Check the history of the Normans too while you're at it. They were very quickly assimilated anyway, even if the norman dialect had more loanwords from germanic languages (both scandinavian and saxon).
Such leaders as Hugues Capet, Philippe le Bel, Henri IV, Richelieu, Louis XIV (or many others) would be better as leaders of France than a frankish warchief (or "dux") and regent who was mostly famous for being a dick with everyone (that's what "Martel" means). France wasn't even a thing back then - there was just a Frankish nobility who kept dividing lands between their heirs more or less arbitrarily and called themselves "kings of the franks". Btw, Charles Martel was much more famous in his time for his victories against other Franks and other germanic "kings".
And finally, given that he's a rallying figure for french neonazis (even worse than Jeanne d'Arc, since at least she's mainly instrumentalized by christian fundamentalists and ultra-nationalists), it would send a very bad signal to french people to pick him as a leader (your use of a quote from Charles de Gaulle was quite ironic in that sense). Anyway, there are just so many better choices - Charles Martel would be a mistake.