The short answer will virtually always be "not without some other source of external energy. In which case you don't need the oxygen either."
That said there's one kind of scenario it could make sense, which I'll come back to after the main stuff.
When chemicals and elements react, to form compounds, the bonds that are formed or broken will mean the reaction needs energy added to happen, or freed energy will be given off. (Technically, there's a bit of wriggle room in that statement, but only a tiny amount, not enough to support a macroscopic body.)
Left to themselves, compounds and elements will tend to form the most stable substances they can, chemically speaking. Because the more reactive, the easier to break their existing bonds, the easier it is to break apart and react into something else. Again, that's roughly correct, not technically perfectly precise.
As an example, elemental oxygen atoms are incredibly reactive, so you tend never to find them wandering round alone - they've reacted with whatever else was present to make iron oxide (rust banded rocks over time) with iron, oxygen molecules with other oxygen atoms, water with hydrogen atoms, and so on. Then within water some will split again, from H2O to ionic forms in equilibrium (H+ and OH-) If we add energy, we can split these apart again - iron oxide back to iron and oxygen atoms, water back to hydrogen and oxygen atoms, etc.
So along comes your organism. To liberate the oxygen again from these, will always require a net input of energy. And because energy is always dissipated in such processes, the usable energy it gets via resulting oxygen just won't be worth the energy it had to get already, to put into the reaction, to free the oxygen in the first place.
Note that none of this is technically precise, and some may have loopholes. You may want to check on Chemistry Stack Exchange if you need to be more sure. You might also find Wikipedia's articles on oxygen in geology, and the great oxygenation event/catastrophe, informative. But that's the rough outline answer.
The one big loophole is this:
Suppose a lifeforms has access to plenty of energy (eg, sunlight) but needs oxygen (or other elements/compounds only found in chemical combinations) for some biological process. Then it might use the external source of energy, and use it to get oxygen and break it down internally from its available form into a more useful biological compound.
But in this case, it would be using the sunlight as its primary energy source, and part of the energy would be "converted" internally so to speak into oxygen for more direct internal purposes, by being used to break oxygen away from whatever it's natively combined with, before using it.
It wouldn't get nearly as much energy from the oxygen as the sunlight it started with, but maybe that's okay. Perhaps it has more than enough primary sources of energy, but biologically ended up developing rocks as an oxygen source for biological processes that are favoured in some way. That's probably feasible. (Carbon life kept underground but with a temperature resilient silicon-based "wings/tail" extruded in daytime, living on the immense raw energy from its blue/UV hot star, but on a desert planet without any significant sources of biologically relevant chemicals apart from underground rocks and deposits???)
That would be a bit like how we get our primary energy from food and oxygen and such, but we don't directly power ourselves from those. Instead we use those things internally to break apart complex molecules and create or store glucose and ATP, which we then use more directly in our bodies to power actual muscles, even though it loses much of the original energy we obtained, in the process of doing so.
