It depends what you mean by "antipathy". And "most people".

I first want to link to and quote from a very recent answer I wrote:

We're accustomed to changing our clothes every day. Sometimes more than once a day. How often did people change and wash their clothes in the 1700s and 1800s?

In the early modern period, there's evidence that people began bathing less specifically because they could have more changes of linen, which took care of the issue. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the ideal was to change at least every day, perhaps more often if one had gotten sweaty doing something physical or if the day were hot - having clean clothes made you more comfortable, obviously, and having crisp, fresh linen around the neckline of your clothes or peeking out from your sleeves was a symbol of both your social status and your moral standing - fiction and non-fiction of the 18th century takes note of the state of individuals' linen, drawing conclusions from the contradiction between someone's greasy, dirty shirt and other fine things they might have. Dirty linen was also thought to cause or attract illness by trapping impurities and "poisons" next to the skin.

By the end of the eighteenth century, the pendulum was swinging back again and many doctors were recommending that people not just visit mineral springs to take the waters (which had meant drinking as often as actually jumping in), but that they take regular baths at home; individuals were also judging each other and other cultures based on their attitudes towards bathing as cleaning with water became an important aspect of gentility, in the same way that visibly clean body linen had previously been. It took longer to catch on in the nascent United States, where it had several serious obstacles: the belief that the countryside (which the US largely was at this point) was already naturally healthy, making bathing unnecessary; the difficulty in heating enough water to fill a tub; the old-fashioned view among the Protestant middle class of bathing as a sensuous, sinful indulgence; and the desire to be different from [insert stereotype here] Europe. But it was generally accepted that infants and children needed regular bathing, and urban elites were installing newfangled showers and bathtubs in their homes - even public baths were making a reappearance. For more on this transition, I would suggest Foul Bodies: Cleanliness in Early America, by Kathleen M. Brown.

By the Victorian era, the middle classes were champions of the concept of sanitation in all aspects of life, from personal hygiene to cleaning the streets - many public voices called for people to take baths. Bathing could be problematic for many, if they didn't have the ability to regularly heat up a tub full of water or the money to visit a public bathhouse, but there was no widespread antipathy toward the idea of it. Without deodorant, those doing physical labor would have body odor, yes, but it's not as though people were generally unwashed, or didn't have any standard of cleanliness.

To soapbox a little, there's something of a tendency to revel in the supposed filth of the past, whether it's medieval peasants covered in mud, seventeenth century intellectuals eschewing immersion in water, or ragged Victorians. We haven't arrived at modern, particularly American standards of cleanliness through objectively determining them to be the best: there is an ideology beyond what's necessary to be clean. We have constructed our own conception of how personal hygiene relates to personal morality - what types of cleanliness relate to being a worthy person, and what types of uncleanliness are typical of the immoral.