I agree with the above answer. In a bit more detail, let E be a smooth conic in $\mathbb{C}^2$, of the form $xy=1$. Then the mirror given by Auroux's construction isstates that the mirror to $\widehat{\mathbb{C}^2}$ taking away$\mathbb{C}^2\setminus E$ is the complement of some divisor as you say $D$ in $\widehat{\mathbb{C}^2}$. Well, if we say that the point is (0$(0,1)$,1) the blow up can be thought ofwritten explicitly as the zero locus of $ut_1=(z-1)t_2$ in $\mathbb{C}^2 \times P^1$. The relevant divisor $D$ is then the union of $t_2=0$ and $z=0$. Thus we have something like
$$ uv=z-1 $$
where z is in $\mathbb{C}^*$. This is clearly the same as what we started with. In fact, these two spaces are even algebraically equivalent in this example, which would not be true if you consider some higher $m$,the analogous construction for $A_m$ spacessurfaces for $m \geq 1$. You can see this example studied in a lot of detail in the thesis work of Pascaleff.
All examples, following Auroux, Gross-Keel-Hacking, ... suggest that for surfaces, if the surface is "log Calabi-Yau," the slogan that hyperkahler rotation is mirror symmetry does seem to work, at least to some extent (atfor log CY $A_m$ surfaces as above, the mirror is given by a hyperkahler rotation, in general the mirror will at least be diffeomorphic to some degreethe original variety). Otherwise, it needs to be corrected along the lines that you suggest (superpotentials, birational transformations, deformations ...). There seems to be a higher dimensionalan analogue of this for higher dimensional hyperkahler manifolds, but there aren't as many computationsexamples which have been explored in the literature as in the surface case.