Yeah, CRT is a misnomer.

Some of it is just the collection of factual events--including a lot of ones that have been swept under the rug. This, you are quite correct, is not a theory at all. These are just facts.

But some of it is a framework for explaining the facts, as you say (e.g. the sustained group disparities). That absolutely could be a "theory" (or "hypothesis", or "speculation", or "framework", or "approach", depending on how rigorous one wants to be).

However, CRT doesn't make the kind of clear predictions that "theories" usually do. (Same goes for Critical Theory, which covers the general approach without specialization to issues of race.) So again, I agree: it's not a theory.

If you can't debate any aspect of it, then it's anti-intellectual and probably mostly rubbish (because debate is how you weed out the rubbish ideas). But I see no evidence that CRT scholars are unable to debate each other, so happily I think that charge is not wholly valid.