Should a phd student try present a review paper in a conference? I am a PhD student and I am doing a literature review for my dissertation. Despite the fact that I am working on the topic, I am not an expert; but I have enough information because of my previous research during MSc and have a published paper in my CV.  

I submitted an abstract of the review paper for oral presentation in the most important conference about the topic and it was accepted. The review is about the developments and contributions from researches in some countries. Then, I told my advisor and he suggested me not to submit the final paper because he thinks that kind of review paper must be done by experts, not by PhD students (it would seem such as teaching to experts); further he thinks I will spend a lot of time which should be spent on my PhD dissertation. I really want to present the review; however, I do not want to contradict my advisor.  

Do you think it is convenient to present the paper?
What is the contribution of your paper going to be? It's a review paper, so you're not going to be contributing any new techniques or results. You say you're not an expert so you're not likely to make any deep connections between different areas of the field or between your field and other areas of study or present any great insights about why things are the way they are, where the field has come from, how it got where it is and where it's going to go next. So what is the contribution?

The usual deal with a conference talk is that you stand up and tell people about your work. They want to listen because they don't know about what you did and you understand it better than they do. What you're proposing is that you stand up and tell them about their work. They already know what they did and you're not an expert on it, so they (at least, some of them) understand it better than you. Why do they want to listen?

Your main motivation seems to be to score "CV points" by presenting at the conference. That could easily be nullified by giving yourself a reputation for not doing research and giving superficial talks with nothing much new in them.