Among hunter-gatherers, men typically do the hunting, while women gather edible plants. Men are of course better at hunting serious game, since they have much greater upper body strength than women, except in the vicinity of Amherst, Massachusetts.
This division of labor affected their relative parental contributions. In the high Arctic, vegetable foods were scarce and most food was procured by men. In tropical and subtropical areas, like ancestral Africa, women typically provided more than half the calories. At least this seems to be the case for recent hunter-gatherers, who live in pretty crappy environments, such as deep forests or the Kalahari desert. Things may have been different in the past, when hunter-gatherers also inhabited the most productive environments.
I’m considering a different question: what was the impact of men’s contribution on their children’s survival and fitness? That’s not quite the same as the number of calories contributed. Food is not a single undifferentiated quantity: it’s a category, including a number of different kinds that can’t be freely substituted for each other. Proteins, fats, and carbohydrates can all serve as fuel, but you need protein to build tissue. And amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, are not all fungible. Some we can’t synthesize (essential amino acids) others can only be synthesized from a limited set of precursors, etc. Edible plants often have suboptimal mixes of amino acids ( too many Qs, not enough Us) , but I’ve never heard of this being a problem with meat. Then you have to consider essential fatty acids, vitamins, and trace elements.
In principle, if high-quality protein were the long pole in the tent, male provisioning of meat, which we see in chimpanzees, might matter quite a bit more than you would think from the number of calories alone. I’m not say that is necessarily the case, but it might be, and it’s worth checking out.