There are a few electric aircraft now, and because batteries hold far less energy than fuel, they're low-performance and short-range compared to normal aircraft.
If we imagine that at some point in the future we'll have batteries that can match fuel, the answer would be: Only slightly.
Back in the 60's and 70's, airliners regularly carried a flight engineer, who's full-time job was to monitor the engines and tweak various controls to keep them running properly. Now that's almost entirely automated. Pilots still have a checklist to follow to start the engines, and things to monitor during the flight, but it's a small part of their responsibilities.
Even if switching to electric propulsion completely removes this, it won't make a huge difference to the pilot. (and that's assuming that the electric system has nothing to monitor or adjust)
The aircraft handling is unlikely to be affected significantly, although there are be minor effects:
Fuel gets used up, so electric planes will have to be designed with stronger landing gear.
Electric motors are easier to scale, so it's easier for small aircraft to have multiple, counter-rotating motors to eliminate torque swing.
The battery is the heaviest part of an electric power system (and for one with hours of endurance, by an order of magnitude), so fitting a motor with excess power has a relatively smaller weight penalty. Electric power systems are good for providing short bursts of high power between long periods of cruising. Unfortunately this is more useful for a car than an aeroplane.
It would be much easier to design an electric power system for an aerobatic plane. Supplying fuel and lubrication while flicking between positive and negative G takes careful design.
Electric motors are quiet, but they are still transferring lots of power into the air, which is inherently noisy.
Ultimately these are all minor effects compared to the elephant in the room, which is that batteries are far heavier than fuel.