You seem to have some misconception here. Obviously, you are investigating chosen ciphertext attacks (CCAs) on textbook RSA instead of chosen plaintext attacks (CPAs). To help you with your understanding I am discussing CPA on textbook RSA first. To analyse all these kinds of attacks we formally model the attack as a game between an adversary (trying to break the property) played with a so called challenger.
CPA for textbook RSA
In a CPA game, an adversary can compute arbitrary encryptions of plaintexts of its choice as it is given the public key by the challenger and at some point submits two distinct plaintexts $m_0$ and $m_1$ to the challenger. The challenger then flips a coin to determine a bit $b$ and provides an encryption of $m_b$ (the challenge ciphertext $c^*$) to the attacker and the attacker has to output a guess $b^*$. The adversary wins if the probability that $Pr[b=b^*] -1/2$ is non negligible (in the security parameter). This means that the adversary needs to succeed significantly better than just guessing the bit.
Clearly, textbook RSA does not provide IND-CPA security, since it is deterministic. When the adversary receives the challenge ciphertext $c^*$, he simply encrypts e.g. $m_0$ and if the so obtained ciphertext matches $c^*$, then we have $b^*=0$ and $b^*=1$ otherwise. Note that the probability of winning this game for textbook RSA is 1.
CCA for textbook RSA
This notion is stronger than CPA and this is modelled by giving the adversary additional access to a decryption black-box (oracle) throughout the game, i.e., the adversary is allowed to submit ciphertexts and gets back the respective message, but does not get to hold the decryption key directly.
The only restriction is that the adversary is not allowed to ask the decryption oracle to decrypt the challenge ciphertext $c^*$.
Now lets look at your given procedure. What you describe is a strategy for winning the CCA game for textbook RSA. Note that if the adversary receives the challenge ciphertext $c^*$, he is not allowed to send $c^*$ to the decryption oracle directly. But what the adversary can do is to "blind" the challenge ciphertext with a "blinding value" $r\in \mathbb{Z}_n^*\setminus \{1\}$, i.e., it submits $c'=c^*r^e \pmod n$ to the decryption oracle (note that this is allowed as $c'\neq c^*$). Then the adversary gets back $m'$ from the decryption oracle which has performed a decryption to obtain $m'=(c^*r^e)^d=m_br \bmod n$. Now if the adversary has chosen $r$ as above, i.e., such that it is invertible in $\mathbb{Z}_n$ (which is the case iff $r$ is relatively prime to $n$, i.e., $gcd(r,n)=1$), then the adversary can compute $r^{-1}$ and compute $m_b=m'r^{-1}$ and wins the CCA game with probability 1.
There are subtle differences between IND-CCA1 and IND-CCA2 security, but this explanation should be sufficient here.
Note that when employing a proper padding scheme to textbook RSA such as OAEP, the decryption oracle will only return a decryption if the decryption works correctly, i.e., the decryption oracle checks if the padding of the message is proper. For a "good" padding scheme the probability of ciphertext $c'=c^*r^e \pmod n$ yields a proper decryption is negligible and thus RSA-OAEP provides IND-CCA security as the above discussed attack does not work (with overwhelming probability).
