Perhaps a better framing of your question: Are there any good philosophers who are women?
Then, one's definition of what constitutes a "good" philosopher (e.g., fundamental, Plato; innovative, Husserl; profound, Plotinus; influential, Kant; brilliant, Whitehead; etc.) finds few philosophers of such stellar merit, and very few women among that set.
The fundamental and influential philosophers, primarily men, and likely primarilty for reasons of Western history, have given place to the profound, to the genuinely innovative, and to the brilliant. Therefore, a genuinely innovative woman philosopher would be Edith Stein and a brilliant woman philosopher, Hypatia. There are few philosophers of the profundity of Plotinus; Saint Teresa of Avila comes to mind.
If one is interested in contemporary thinking, there are 100s if not 1000s of second-rate thinkers, 1000s if not 10000s of third-rate thinkers, and 10000s and 100000s of those who are yet learning to know themselves and formulate logical schema. To be a second-rate thinker is an honor, as is third-rate thinking ("second-tier" or "second-rank" if "second-rate" seems pejorative). Fourth-rate thinkers imo often claim indefensible and/or illogical positions, whether in religion, philosophy, the hard and soft sciences, and the arts, and these are yet amateurs. An amateur may have brilliant ideas, but if she bases her schema on gender alone, or on ethnicity, or even intersectionality, that is yet another example of someone who, having fashioned a concept as a main tool, finds all her problems to be screws, or whatnot. There is a level of erudition more prominent in philosophy since its academization, with the latest iteration of such routinization beginning in the 19th century. C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" gives a first-hand account, in fiction, of those who play that type of gaming, in modern academia, and who are basically useful teachers of a subject, when they are not preoccupied with turning over comparatively trivial scholasticisms, riding sophistry fads bandwagons, pushing agendas, and/or doing make-work tenure-track publications. Additionally, it is worth noting that one person's Heidegger is another person's Wittgenstein, i.e., there are many different ways to evaluate philosophers, just as there are many ways to evaluate MLB players.
It is probably more useful to emend Socrates' insight that happily-married men and women would not do philosophy, by noting that earning a living by genuine thinking, e.g., working as an engineer, is where genuine "philosophy" is, as in its calving off the various sciences. Academicism or the "ivory tower" type of "headucation," is perhaps less useful, other than when it transmits genuine, main ideas and knowledge, cultural capital, from one interested generation to the next. So, there are few Wittgensteins who, having learned engineering, turn to contemplation of "what it all means;" likewise, there are comparatively few happily-marrieds or vocationally-focused who turn to philosophy for further insight (or even to religion, which typically asks more of the "believer" than a simple reading of the "great ideas"--and, if said religious "practice" is no more than simple attendance (or "lip service"), is not necessarily more lasting or beneficial for the believer).
Philosophy may be noted having the precondition of dissatisfaction--either with God and spirituality as religion, or with self/relationships, or with Nature. Science has developed out of this dissatisfaction, with the happily-scientific creative minority having more in common with self-actualizers, than with other, more routinized scientism. A similar pattern is noted in the arts and in religion. Thus Socrates' distinction between happily-doing, and philosophizing for the depressed or dissatisfied, may be emended by modern awareness to include a third category, that of some happily-marrieds or other actualizers advancing, as a creative minority taking dominion over the earth and subduing it (mastering oneself in relation to Nature and God), e.g., in the happiness of truly progressive contemplation of marriage, etc. This Nietzschean vision of overcoming self-actualizers, such as da Vinci and Goethe, is foreseen by those such as Vladimir Solovyov ("Lectures on Divine Humanity"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs