I'm starting this answer over because it's clear to me now that there are some distractions in my OP that are causing some measure of emotional distraction among the readership and that protracted discussion on this has not led to a better understanding of whether what's proposed in the question is possible. BTW, thanks Allesandro for taking the time to explain the primary points of distraction.
So; is the raising and educating of children by an AI feasible? No. But, instead of getting into what computers can and can't do and why, I'll focus on the real issue; education.
If you look at my answer to a related question about the necessity of education, you'll note that my experience is that education has very little to do with knowledge. It may be an essential ingredient to the learning process, but it's not the recipe per se.
Learning isn't simply the ingestion of knowledge. I can put a wealth of knowledge on a HDD, but that doesn't mean the HDD has learnt anything. The ingestion of knowledge coupled with the integration of that knowledge into one's perspective and world view is learning. Sometimes, the information we're presented with is so alien to us that we put it aside with the view that it may be digestible later. Other times, it is so contrary to our own experience and perspective that we reject it completely, but most of the time we find all those little places within our perspective that the new information fits, and we integrate it, expanding our perspective, experience and world view at the same time.
Many times however, the only way to connect the new learnings to our own perspective is via the perspective of another. That is to say, often someone who acts as a teacher has to provide additional concepts, thoughts, perspectives, etc. that expand our existing perspective sufficiently to be capable of integrating the new ideas.
A simple example. Take a 3 year old and explain quantum physics to them. How much will they learn? Almost nothing. The knowledge has no frame of reference for someone at that level of development. BUT, take a bright student in (say) year 5 of school, and sit down with them individually, answer their questions as the material is presented, provide the conceptual and perceptual frameworks as they're asked for, and you're far more likely to get a result.
This is why we haven't replaced teachers with consoles in schools. It's why professors and other tertiary educators are still an important part of the education process. It's why my local university brings me in to give students the benefit of my field experience as part of their coursework and higher learnings. It's also why a computer will fundamentally fail as an educator.
A computer can store knowledge and can store patterns for later comparison. But, it doesn't understand what it's stored in a manner that can generate its own perspective. As such, it can't explain a concept, only present it. Additionally, it can't filter and refine the embryonic ideas that a student will present back as an attempt to express the developing concept. Remember, that in such an interaction it's not only possible but usual that the teacher expands his or her knowledge in this same interaction. But in order to do that, the teacher has to be able to assess the relative validity of certain concepts via qualification, not quantification. Computers don't do this. Anyone who has worked to a set of KPIs before knows that computers can only assess quality by 'cheating' and measuring quantities that indicate quality.
Could a much more advanced computer algorithm (in both scale and complexity) bridge this gap? Personally (based on my research) I think the answer is no, at least as a classical computer based on algorithmic processing. Could a quantum computer one day do it? That's a question we'll no doubt answer one day but is out of scope for this answer.
I agree that a simulated human robot can look and feel like a nurturer in early life although I disagree that this would be anywhere near as effective as a real person, but I'm not going to discuss emotional development here as the AI alternative is a possible replacement for human interaction in that regard, albeit a likely inferior one.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the vast majority of a child's learning development needing other human perspectives, experience, and expression in different forms in order to flourish. The very imprecision of language that allows us to learn new words, hear new concepts expressed in different ways, and imbues a level of passion or other emotional intensity to the lesson require context to be used correctly that can only be applied by a person who's own perspective has been shaped and expanded via the same tools.
As such, while it's possible that an AI may be able to physically care for a human child, and possibly even care for that child emotionally to some degree, it's intellectual development will suffer under the care of a computer of any level of sophistication and complexity.
Educators (including parents) are just far more essential to the raising of children than people realise.