Suppose I have a vectorvalued function of four variables, $\mathbf{F}:\mathbb{R}^4\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, such that $\mathbf{F}(x,y,z,t)$.
Now suppose $x,y,z$ are function of $t$, such that $\mathbf{F}(x(t),y(t),z(t),t)$. Is $\mathbf{F}$ still a function of four variables, $\mathbb{R}^4\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$?
A similar question:
Suppose I instead have a vectorvalued function of three variables, $\mathbf{F}:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, such that $\mathbf{F}(x,y,z)$.
Now if $\mathbf{F}(x(t),y(t),z(t))$, is $\mathbf{F}$ still a function of three variables, $\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$?
$F$ is still a function of four variables. When you write the thing you wrote, you're really defining something new implicitly (in a way that physicists often do, and without renaming, which tends to confuse lots of other folks).
For instance, I'd write things this way:
Given \begin{align} F& :\Bbb R^4 \to \Bbb R^3 \\ x& :\Bbb R \to \Bbb R \\ y& :\Bbb R \to \Bbb R \\ z& :\Bbb R \to \Bbb R \\ \end{align} let \begin{align} G& :\Bbb R \to \Bbb R^3: t \mapsto F(x(t), y(t), z(t), t). \end{align} Now it's evident that $G$ is a function of one variable, arrived at by composing several functions.
As I said, a physicist will sometimes write $F(t) = F(x(t), y(t), z(t), t)$ (or something like that), using the name "F" for both the 4-argument function $F$ and the one-argument function $G$. A typical example of this is "We have a time-varying electric field $E$ on all of 3-space, and a particle whose trajectory is given by functions $x,y,z$ of time. Then the electric field at time $t$ [implicit meaning: the electric field, at the point where the particle happens to be at time $t$] is $E(t) = E(x(t), y(t), z(t), t)$. And the derivative of this is just $E'(t) = \ldots$." I always find things like this baffling