Maybe the dictionary definition, but not the colloquial use by many logical people. It is about recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. There are several life events that I happened upon (luck) that I was able to recognize and attempt to take advantage of that have shaped my entire life. Looking back, I can see how little changes during these events could have led to a radically different outcome.

Not really, you can expand it to "Luck favors those who are prepared to take advantage of it." They are more fertile ground for random favorable outcomes that fall everywhere.

Luck is necessary, but not sufficient.

To be clear, most people have average luck, so with average preparation and an average amount of hard work things will turn out average, on average. Helps if you're born rich and all that, but on average this holds some truth.

Sometimes, you'll be unbelievably unlucky, and no amount of preparation will fix that. But that's unlikely, so you have agency.

Is there a reason you think it does? I don't believe the two ideas are at odds with each other.

It does not. For many endeavors, preparation is essential but not sufficient.

How so?

The idea here is that being successful on any venture is half chance (luck). If you're creating more chances (putting in the work, "being prepared") you're creating more chances.