Mary Kom's coaches say she has a real gift for boxing; so because her skill is a gift, she doesn't deserve any credit for it. Which informal logical fallacy is committed in the above statement?

The argument trades on two different meanings of the word gift.

In the coaches' remark gift means a natural talent for boxing.

In the conclusion gift shifts to mean a present received without earning it.

Sliding between these senses makes the inference that she deserves no credit seem to follow.

Exploiting a shift in a term's meaning within one argument is the fallacy of equivocation.