Ted Newsom wrote:
........
Given the ephemeral verbosity of the treatment, the producer makes the call to hire a journeyman writer to adapt the story to a screenplay so studio people-- designers, costumers, budgeters, actors-- actually understand how to put the movie on film.

EDIT: Given the wacky inappropriateness of THE ATOMIC MONSTER as a title... I wonder if this was a slug title, like DESTINY in the 1940s at Universal, something to plop onto the first page of a screenplay so at least there's SOMEthing there. The most awful example of this is I can think of is the Morey Amsterdam thing, DON'T WORRY, WE'LL THINK OF A TITLE.  And they didn't.  Like it would've helped
.
Actually, the dialog in all Ray's drafts is, well, Bradburyesque, and there is, of course, some of that still in the film, mostly in Carlson's and Sawyer's comments about the desert and the overhead lines. 
      
I see no reason to think anything other than that U-I really did consider ATOMIC MONSTER as the title for the film; it's on three of Bradbury's screen treatments, and of course, it was a Universal movie that did end up called ATOMIC MONSTER.... Remember, this was in the days when "atomic" was a buzzword meaning dangerous, weird, otherworld, explosive, etc. In 5000 FINGERS OF DR. T, when Bart shows Dr. T the sound gobbler the boy and the plumber have invented, Dr. T quaverlingly asks "Is--is--it atomic?" Bart proudly declares, "Yes! Very atomic!"