Here is the compactness theorem:
If every finite subset of $\Phi$ is satisfiable, then $\Phi$ is satisfiable.
Is the contrapositive the following?
If $\Phi$ is unsatisfiable (tautologically independent), then every finite subset of $\Phi$ is unsatisfiable.
Does unsatisfiability imply tautological independence?
The comment from @spaceisdarkgreen is correct, but maybe a little more explanation would help. The contrapositive of "if A then B" is "if it's not the case that B then it's not the case that A. In your situation, B is "$\Phi$ is satisfiable" so "it's not the case that B" is "$\Phi$ is unsatisfiable"; that part of your question was correct. The problem concerns the other half, where "it's not the case that A" is "it's not the case that every finite subset of $\Phi$ is satisfiable." Where you went wrong is that to deny that every finite subset is satisfiable is not the same as to assert that every finite subset is unsatisfiable; rather it is to assert that some finite subset is unsatisfiable. (For an easy analogy: To deny that all Americans are right-handed is not to assert that we're all left-handed, only that some of us are left-handed.)
To summarize, the error in your proposed contrapositive does not involve the compactness theorem directly nor the notion of contrapositive but rather the negation of universal assertions.