You can't have the goal without the personality trying to achieve it.
This notion that evolution has an opinion is exactly why there are a lot of companion misconceptions about it - not least of which is the notion that humans are somehow at the top of the landscape it has produced.
Actively and adaptively. With every part and behavior continuously tuned, within and across generations, to support that one outcome. Carried out by inventive means and intricate strategies. With hierarchies of structure, function and interaction. And statistically successful over all kinds of environmental challenges and variation.
"Consistently, actively and adaptively, X outcome aligned", over all other potential outcomes, is as good a phrase for "goal of X" as any.
Yes, you can narrow the definition of "goal" in any way you want, for yourself. But my use of the term is consistent with normal use of the term, and its definition. It is not a technically defined term.
If you want to argue that there is a difference between "effective goals" for things that relentlessly and adaptively pursue some outcome, but without cognitive support, vs "reflective goals", created and/or carried out cognitively, often idiosyncratically to particular individuals, I would agree.
There is also a clear distinction between artifacts without structure and function aligned for some outcome, and those that "consistently, actively and adaptively" maximize the reliability of some very specific class of outcome. And calling the latter a "goal" is reasonable.