I’ve heard Greeks insist that lamda is indeed correct (as a non-misleading approximation of something like [lamða], not necessarily as an English spelling), so that part might have been a deliberate result of the ISO process.

(There’s also the name caron for the haček, apparently not used by anyone before the 80s; per the official FAQ:

Q: Why is the haček accent called “caron” in Unicode?

A: Nobody knows.)

Not for lack of trying: https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Blog/2009/08/antedating-caron.h...

Why can't unicode change the names of the glyphs?

From that page:

“Because Unicode Standard is a character encoding standard and not the Universal Encyclopedia of Writing Systems and Character Identity, the stability and uniqueness of published character names is far more important than the correctness of the name. The published character names are normative for the purposes of the Unicode standard and the large number of other IT standards that reference it. These standards require stable identifiers and character names must therefore be immutable — any change of character names is almost as disruptive of the standards as changing code points for characters would be. Accordingly, the Unicode Consortium has adopted the Name Stability Policy, preventing changes in character names. As a result, errors in character names cannot be corrected. Instead, important character name anomalies anomalies (SIC) are documented with annotations in the Unicode Character Code Charts.”

Also because somebody, somewhere, might have used those names to look up Unicode code points.

Part of each Unicode release is a file named “UnicodeData.txt” (https://unicode.org/Public/13.0.0/ucd/UnicodeData.txt), so those strings are public information.

Just a note in passing: Unicode doesn't name glyphs; it names characters.