There's an interesting discussion of that question over at Right Reason. The post's author, Alexander Pruss, is certainly right to imply that love in the relevant sense, i.e.
agape, cannot be
merely a disposition. But neither do I think it right to say that
agape entails no disposition to love, if indeed that's what is being said. I'd say that
agape is fundamentally a kind of action which, when performed regularly, entails a non-necessitating
habitus or disposition to act similarly.