I can think of 2 options of the interpretation of this sentence, which one is the most natural to you? Or if they are both unnatural to you, please provide your interpretation.
--> "I was never made(=born) to love her."
The implicit connotation that came to mind right away is "natural born X" or "born to X" (for example: "natural born leader" or "born to lead"), which implies a purpose or a talent that do NOT come from upbringing but is part of your DNA (thus in the gender debate where one side claims "I'm born this way") and also from an extrinsic agent outside yourself.
If you say this to a Christian audience, this purpose is immediately associated with the theological belief that God is this extrinsic agent, who has a unique plan for every person since before he/she was born (Psalm 139:15-16 and a generalization of Jeremiah 29:11 to every person), which gives a Christian some peace and assurance in moments of uncertainties (in between careers or choosing a life partner, for example) or hardship (the love of your life left you, for example). Secondly, they believe that to realize this divine purpose, God would give the necessary ability (talent) for parents and educators who then nurture the child, and for the child / person themselves to direct their will to cooperate with God's gift by doing the necessary effort to develop it (like practicing piano). Thirdly, they believe that God also directs the path by putting you in certain situations, opening doors of opportunity for you to take, or having you to meet key people who could become your mentor / spouse / etc. (divine appointment).
I am pretty sure that this connotation of purpose came from Christianity (given the history of the English language) but now in the secular age the divine source of purpose, talent, and direction have been forgotten or replaced with fate / destiny. Putting the implicit divine agent back, we can interpret your sentence as:
God did not have the plan for me to love her [as a wife].
or if you don't believe in a God described above, "made" becomes meaningless and God's plan nonexistent, so you substitute "destiny":
I am born not destined to love her.
With this realization, you then need to discover who to marry, by asking God (if you're religious) or by asking a fortune teller (to know your destiny).
If you choose to interpret your sentence religiously, here are comments on your 2 interpretations. The presupposition is that God made everyone to love and to be loved, which is a conjunction of natural desire and a command.
Interpretation #1 is incomplete because we are commanded to love every person (even our enemies), but it makes sense that we are only meant (by God) to love one person romantically.
Interpretation #2 is out, because God will never say not to love a particular person.
Technically, OP's text it's ambiguous. But note that the negated emphasis of never is irrelevant to the default parsing, so we may as well consider...
I was born to love her
...which everyone would understand as meaning the reason I was born was in order to love her1. In which case obviously it stands to reason I must have been made in such a way that I can and do love her, so OP's interpretation #2 is implicit within interpretation #1 anyway.
Taking an even more common example of the same construction, nobody would by default interpret born to serve as meaning born in such a way that one is capable of serving - it means destined to serve.
1 That same default interpretation would apply with made instead of born. With no supporting context, it would be perverse to interpret made as meaning forced here.
