Your reasoning is logically strong if we distinguish love from approval, trust, or lack of boundaries.
In the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the command to "love your enemies" is significant because enemies are precisely the people who have not met any condition that would make them easy to love. If love were only owed to those who behave well, then the command would simply be "love your friends."
For example:
- You can love someone while refusing to enable destructive behavior.
- You can love someone while ending a harmful relationship.
- You can love someone while seeking justice for wrongdoing.
- You can love someone while not trusting them.
Many Christians understand love in this context as willing the good of the other person—desiring their redemption, healing, and ultimate good—even when they are acting as an enemy.
This is also consistent with passages where Jesus forgives those crucifying him, yet still condemns evil and calls people to repentance. Love does not erase consequences.
One nuance some theologians raise is that while our obligation to love is unconditional, the experience of relationship and intimacy is not. A parent may love a child unconditionally, but the closeness of the relationship can be damaged by the child's actions. Likewise, Christians often argue that God loves all people, yet fellowship with God can be affected by how people respond to Him.
So your insight could be stated this way:
If Christians are commanded to love even their enemies, then Christian love is unconditional in the sense that it is not dependent on the other person's worthiness or behavior. However, unconditional love does not mean unconditional approval, trust, intimacy, or freedom from consequences.
That distinction resolves much of the debate.