I have my own grievances with AA programs, mostly surrounding the fact that I prefer other solutions to the issue of a lack of equality of opportunity and see such programs as a band-aid solution (especially when they’re applied poorly in the real world), but I don’t think I’d argue that it’s non-meritocratic when framed with other policies. In and of itself, potentially, but if it’s working towards a wider ideal of a meritocratic society then no. If it’s used to correct existing inequalities so that a meritocratic society can be established, then I’d say it fits in with a wider meritocratic ideology.
One has to place certain caveats on AA programs in order to maximise societal utility and gains from it though, although this is detracting from the meritocracy arguments and just into a wider analysis of how it can function. Obviously you still need to have stringent tests for sectors to ensure the best quality workers and those who are capable to get in rather than hiring them to fill certain quotas, but allocating resources to at least allow for an equality of opportunity is desirable. Plus, it depends on the sector too. Being more lenient on allowing people with weaker skill-sets to advance into one field in the name of giving them a better quality of life is different to allowing someone with the same problems to advance into the medical sector for example.