Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.
Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.