I would say there's no significant semantic difference between OP's exact two examples, but in certain specific contexts one or the other would be more "idiomatic".
1.) If you were sitting in a hotel having an early "working breakfast", you'd be more likely to use #1 (with the meaning *"Did you like getting up early this morning?").
2.) The hotel manager wanting to know if his guest would like an early or a late breakfast the next day would be more likely to use #2 (with the meaning *"Will it suit you to get up early tomorrow morning?").
Thus, although I don't see any distinction based on "repetition", there is a distinction based on the fact that the gerund/present continuous ("Do you like doing this?") is a better choice when the person you're asking is currently doing whatever it is.
The difference becomes clearer if we change the activity from getting up early to being here...
3: Do you like being here? (normal English)
4: ?Do you like to be here? (unlikely to be said by native speakers)
Where #4 is unlikely because (as explained above) we normally use the first form when the activity being asked about is currently being performed (and usually we'd only be asking such a question if the person was in fact "here" at the time). But contrast that pair with...
5: Do you like being at home on Thanksgiving?
6: Do you like to be at home on Thanksgiving?
In this case, #5 is more likely if you're asking someone who's currently at home, on Thanksgiving Day (or very close to it). Effectively, you're asking if the person likes their current circumstances.
Regarding the use of in with time:
There's a couple of common expressions that use in with time (there's probably more than below):
In time - means before an understood deadline of some sort. It differs from on time - on time means you arrived at the correct time - in time may mean you got there early.
("In time" can mean "when circumstances allow" or "eventually" - it will usually but not always start the sentence, or precede the subject-verb part of the sentence, i.e. In time, we will conquer the enemy or *If you keep working at it, in time you will succeed.)
In plenty of time - means with an ample amount of time left over.
For in time and in plenty of time, the point of time that you arrive is "within" or "inside of" the range of time you have to be at the destination, so "in" makes sense.
Let's say we are talking about a train - the train leaves at 5:00PM, and you learned of the train leaving then at 3:00PM. You arrived at 4:45PM. 4:45PM is in the range of 3:00PM to 5:00PM.
Some others:
In good time - equivalent to in plenty of time (people racing one another comes to mind with this)
In enough time - when something is ready - The cookies are baking. In enough time we can eat them.
In no time - means something has taken no time to happen, or a very short duration of time passed. - I was driving recklessly and got to the station in no time.
So...
I like getting to the station in plenty of time.
I like to get to the station in plenty of time.
These sound fine to me, but are something you'd hear in speech more than see in writing in my opinion.
Regarding the difference between getting and to get:
In my initial opinion as a native speaker, there is not a difference between them. However, this says the following:
Using a gerund (-ing form) suggests that you are referring to real activities or
experiences. Using an infinitive (to X) suggests that you are talking about
potential or possible activities or experiences.
So, since you are talking about a potential activity, to get is the right thing to use.
Best Answer
The previous answers are not quite right, but it's a very tricky question.
The third example, "to get out of debt" is a bit of an exception. One reason to use 'get' instead of 'getting' here is because get makes a nice rhyme with debt, for the purpose of selling books. So I wouldn't use that one as an example of typical usage.
I think the default is actually 'getting' instead of 'get.'
However, it seems that 'getting' would feel unnatural in the last example. I think the issue here is that the 'get' in that example is used in a more complex way, where the real verb is not 'get,' but "get started", and "get started" has a double complement. Who got started? you. What did you get started doing? making money. This is not true of the other examples.