Apparently, "[t]his suggest that the approach may be sensible, but that not all short vectors give rise to factoring relations, and that obtaining a sufficient success rate requires much larger lattice dimension than claimed in [Sch21]."
Yes, claiming that "this breaks RSA" is bold, but this implementation shows that there is some advance in doing so in the paper.
Therefore signaling that this is a "scandal" via the postfix "gate" seems just inappropriate.
Apart from that kudos for the implementation to Ducas!
Calling it the "Schnorr attack" would imply that the outcome of it is still uncertain. And it also would sound way cooler ;)
Just to make sure you get Ducas's main argument, I quote him here again: "Personal study (unfortunately, never written down cleanly) of this approach suggested me that this approach requires solving SVP in dimensions beyond reasonable, leading to a factorization algorithm much slower than the state of the art. My impression is that this is the consensus among experts having spent some time on it as well."
So it seems like the conclusion is clear-cut contrary to what you were suggesting.
Also wouldn't the name "Schnorr attack" lead to people thinking of attacks on Schnorr signatures instead?