Have you noticed that Columbus is a tremendous case of nominative determinism, or a huge coincidence?
For starters, his personal name, Christopher, is an Hellenic name, Christo-phoros, meaning 'Christ-bearer', and it became widespread among Christians for the legend of the eponymous saint, who carried an unknown and uncannily heavy child across a river, that happened to be THE Jesus and then said to the man that the weight he had loaded was the entire world and his creator.
What did this other Christopher? Crossed another body of water, carrying with himself the Christian religion and all the good and bad (and super very bad) things of the so-called 'Old World' to the Americas.
But ok, Christopher was a common name back then, so it's not so hard for it to be a coincidence.
Even if the surname strictly refers to a dove or pigeon (and you still could get some extra religious imaginery from that), the weird part is how the noun gets reused and suffixed when making reference to him. Especially in Spanish, where the surname doesn't have the b, and is instead just 'Colón'.
What did Colón do in the Americas? He colon-ised them, creating colon-ies, which only got to be called 'Colombia' or 'Columbia' because 'Colonia' was already a taken toponym for the southern German city.
I'm going to be honest with you: it took too much time to child me to get that the concept of colony wasn't derived from the name of the guy who started the biggest colonisation event in the history of humanity, and instead from the Proto-Indo-European '*kʷel-', to move around, till or dwell, and that it's cognate with 'pole' and 'inquiline'. It just made too much sense, and the alternative almost none of it, except for the fact that 'colonia' in Latin had the current meaning as it has now for at least a millennium before Colón was even born!