Classification of logic hazards in combinatorial networks
It appears there definitely is some inconsistency on the definition of a dynamic hazard.

Although I have seen  some definitions of dynamic hazards that are similar to yours, for example this one:

"Dynamic hazards occur when the output signal has the potential to change more than once when it is expected to make a single transition from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0."

I have also seen the definition of a dynamic hazard simply defined by multiple transitions, and no requirement that the final state be different (it may or may not be).

For example, in this PowerPoint presentation:

"Dynamic hazards: The output could change more than once during input transitions -  caused by multiple paths with different delays from input to the output."

So no mention of whether the output has to finally change state or not.

(whereas static hazards are defined in the same paper to be caused by two input combinations that differ in only one variable and produce a single glitch)

Here is another definition of a dynamic hazard from a University of Surrey logic course:

"A dynamic hazard is the possibility of an output changing more than once as a result of a single input change"

Again, no mention of whether the output has to finally change state or not.

So for these definitions, the difference between static and dynamic hazards is defined by the number of unwanted glitches; static 0 and static 1 hazards have only one, and dynamic hazards have more than one.

Using either of the latter two definitions, then in your case of multiple transitions while the output is expected to remain unchanged, would be classed as a dynamic hazard.