A Schnorr Public Key $K$ per the linked BIP340 is 32 bytes representing, in big-endian order, the X coordinates of any point on the Elliptic Curve secp256k1 not the point at infinity. As noted there,
every public key has two corresponding secret keys
namely some integer $d'\in[1,n)$ such that $d'\cdot G$ has X coordinate $K$, and $n-d'$ which also is such that $(n-d')\cdot G$ has X coordinate $K$.
Prefixing $K$ with $\text{02}$ and $\text{03}$ forms two valid ECDSA public keys in compressed form, which respective privates keys form the set $\{d',n-d'\}$, in some order.
$K$ does not correspond to any one of these two keys in particular. Knowing $d'$, we can compute $d'\cdot G$, and the parity of the $Y$ coordinate of the result is the same as the parity of the prefix of the matching public key. In other words, if $(d',K)$ is a valid BIP340 (private, public) key pair, one of $(d',02\mathbin\|G)$ or $(d',03\mathbin\|G)$ is a valid ECDSA key pair, and which can be told knowing $d'$.
When $d'$ is used to sign per BIP340, it first get converted as part of the signing process to $d$ equal to $d'$ or $n-d'$, whichever is such that the Y coordinate of $dG$ is an even integer in $(1,p)$. Thus if $(d',K)$ is a valid BIP340 (private, public) key pair, then $d$, as derived from $d'$ as part of the signing process, is such that $(d,02\mathbin\|K)$ is a valid ECDSA key pair. In that sense the $02$ prefix is preferred.
Notice that the standard security proof of ECDSA (resp. Schnorr) signature assumes the private key is not used for any other purpose than performing an ECDSA (resp. Schnorr) signature, therefore using the same key pair for both systems is not proven safe by these arguments (I'm not stating it's unsafe, only that standard proofs of security are invalidated). Absent more security argument, it would be contrary to good cryptography practices to use the same key for two signature systems. It raises a number of issues
- can an adversary turn the signature of a known message under one system into the signature of the same message under the other system ?
- what can an adversary do with the same message independently signed under both systems ?