For this market a "humanoid robot" will be defined as having two (and only two) legs, which are used for significant travel on the surface. To simplify judgement of what is or isn't humanoid, there is no requirement that the overall appearance be like that of a human. For example, a two-legged robot whose knees point backward and with dinner-plates for feet would still count as humanoid.
@Mqrius Interesting! I'd never seen that sort of robot before.
The four wheeler in the image is disqualified from being humanoid due to having wheels. That is, it's "legs" would not work like legs.
However your question was about one that had multiple limbs, all of which could act as legs (but also as hands). In the interest of adhering as closely as possible to my initial definition of "two (and only two) legs", then I would say a multi-legged robot wouldn't qualify as humanoid.
To clarify further, a robot which drops to all fours (or six, or however many limbs it has) may count as humanoid, but only if it doesn't travel a significant distance while in that mode. That is, it could reposition by a couple meters while on all fours, but when it wants to travel further it needs to do so on only two legs. The same two legs. Basically, if more than two limbs can interchangeably be used as legs, then it's got more than two legs and it doesn't count.
This is a nice reminder that all binary Yes/No classifications are a bit arbitrary!