>Why should I even bother giving my Section Manager a list of evaluators if she forms her feedback from people who I did not list as evaluators?

You're giving her suggestions - doesn't sound like she's obligated to adhere strictly to those suggestions.

> Or she doesn't say it explicitly, but suggests that she talked to people on my team who I did not list as evaluators, implying that her analysis came from people who I did not tell her to look at.

I'd hope she is - otherwise she'd be doing a pretty poor job. Her job is to get as complete a picture of your performance as she can. If she just spoke with people you suggested and went purely off that she would risk missing potentially serious issues. I'm not saying there *are* serious issues with your performance, but it's her job to look for them.

>This is concerning me and I don't know how to respond to it professionally.

Unless you're particularly concerned about what these people would say I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, or indeed that it requires any "response". 

If you **do** have concerns about what these people might have said, e.g. one of them has an issue with you then you can cross that bridge when you come to it. 

>I don't know why it is even worth me giving evaluators to her.

erm.. *because she asked for them?* It's not a exactly an unreasonable request - sure you can refuse and pout about it if you want but to what end?

Even if she is checking in with different people it doesn't mean that the evaluators you provided her with were a waste of time - for all you know it was they who suggested she check in with the other parties.