I DO dispute it. My copy of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary contains no such definition for the "Theory of Evolution"... in fact, the "Theory of Evolution" isn't even an entry.
The word "evolution" IS, on the other hand well defined, and ONE of those definitions is: "any process of formation or growth; development," which clearly can be used in reference to a wide range of subjects, e.g., the "evolution" of language, the "evolution" of culture, the "evolution" of biological entities, "evolution" of the space program, stellar "evolution," and yes, even "evolution" of the Universe, i.e., cosmological "evolution."
But neither the phrase "Theory of evolution" nor the the word "evolution" is synonymous with Cosmology, and I've never seen a competent modern science text use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" in a cosmological context.
So, in conclusion, the word "evolution" can be used to characterize any process of formation or growth; but by itself, it does not mean "the formation and growth of the Universe."
What you're disputing is that "theory of evolution" is used by some to provide an all encompassing explanation for why the universe is as it is without resorting to the supernatural. What I'd suggest you do is let Richard Dawkins know.