Pheromones, even in species that react strongly to sex pheromones, are like an on/off switch or a volume switch that triggers the strength of an existing impulse.
But, pheromones don't do anything as complex as changing the basic template of the species (or even family or order or phylum) of what someone has a capacity to see as a sexual object. That would involve reprogramming lots of different areas of the brain, not just adjusting the flow in one or two biochemical pathways in the body as pheromones do.
A plant that chemically triggers direct dopamine release a la the Greek myth of the Lotus Eaters (producing an effect similar to Oxycontin) wouldn't be explicitly sexual, but can be transmitted in gas form (people can smoke heroin, for example), and would trigger feelings of euphoria and trust. Basically, it could skip the sexual arousal phase and go straight to the afterglow.
But, even if any existing pheromones have only a slight effect (and count me among those who think that the evidence supports very mild pheromone effects in humans), I don't think that anyone seriously disputes that sexual arousal has a strong biochemical element to it.
Sex pheromones do have powerful effects in many non-human species, and while humans have greatly degraded olfactory capacity, that doesn't mean that the biochemical pathways that sex pheromones trigger in other species don't exist in humans. It just means that the way that those pathways are triggered in humans is different. Find the right trigger and you will get the desired effect.
Like pretty much anything else that has a strong biochemical element to it, it would probably be theoretically possible in principle to hijack the relevant biochemical pathways with a gaseous form perfume from a plant, even if that isn't something that happens in nature.
A plant could have an even more powerful and plausible impact on the biochemical pathways involved in sexual arousal if it accessed these pathways not through a gaseous form perfume, since humans are particularly insensitive to smells, but instead through some sort of contact poison (think poison ivy that made you horny instead of itchy), perhaps in tendrils extending far beyond the main plant, or spores (the nettle and burr examples are good ones), or pollens.
The real problem with a plant triggering sexual arousal is that even if the plant does successfully achieve this perfectly, in some way or another, leveraging that cue into an attempt to have sex with the plant that in turn causes the plant to be able to eat you is an entirely different matter.
Sexual arousal merely makes someone highly receptive to other perhaps otherwise substandard cues that there is an opportunity to have sex (the technical term is beer goggles). Someone really aroused and far gone might even try to copulate with a dog or a cow or a goat. But, even extremely sexually aroused drunk people do not generally try to copulate with plants. A plant that did this might cause animals in its vicinity to have inter-species and other varieties of sex that they might not otherwise engage in, like certain plants in the Xanth novels of Piers Anthony, but would probably not lead to someone trying to have sex with the plant itself. Changing the cues in other senses that cause a person's brain to identify a potential sexual partner to the extent that they would be attracted to a plant when they were sexually aroused would be far, far harder (maybe virtually impossible) than merely causing someone to be sexually aroused in general.
A more plausible strategy for a plant that could tap into the biochemical pathway that leads to sexual arousal would be to have a chemical trigger that has that effect when ingested, causing people to eat the plant to get the effect and in the process to spread the seeds and encourage humans to cultivate them.