Sometimes.. the best option is to think "composite" rather than editing what's there.
Regardless of skill level and the ability of some tools, there are times where the area one needs to match is just so small the effort it takes to replicate that small area across a much, much, larger area is just unreasonable.
In my opinion, this is one such case. You aren't going to be able to effectively clone or duplicate a tiny area to be 10-30 times it's size. Seams and repetition are going to be abundantly clear and the amount of work to overcome those issues can be ridiculous.
So, think "composite" instead. Find a completely different image of a wood floor and composite that image into your existing image. In other words, replace the floor aspect entirely, don't try and work with the existing pixels. If one composites a new image, then there's only one seam or one area of integration which needs to be addressed. In this case, the top edge.
It can be much easier to alter tones, hues, shadows in a composite than correct a billion bad cloning/content aware seams.
Just a cursory search for "wooden ship's deck" turns up some possible composite solutions:
Note: I searched for "ship's deck" because there's a greater possibility it will more closely match the existing image in that it'll have a greater chance of being worn and weathered. Whereas "wood floor" will almost always be clean and smooth.
This specific image may not be best to use. it's merely provided as a quick example.
Even if you can only get so close with image searching, it's easier to alter the perspective of a larger image to more closely match the original.
I'm not trying to imply the work will be minimal with a composite. Not by any means. But it will be cut considerably by just finding a better suited image to cover the area you need to fill. Matching tones/shadows and fixing a single seam will take much less time and effort.