Guns cannot be jammed. Bullets cannot be "blinded". Gun based CIWS will not be replaced by point defense missiles. They can complement each other but guns are also more versatile like Lethe mentioned. Because there will be close to zero instances of anti-ship missiles closing in through the net of interceptor missiles HHQ-9s and HHQ-16s, from directly ahead, there will be close to zero need for 1130 to fire at 12 o'clock. Most scenarios will have ship facing threat from side direction so both HHQ-10 and Type 1130 will be actively engaging last few missiles making it through the HHQ-9s and HHQ-16s. Type 055 may even be quad packing other smaller types like navalised PL-12s, has PLAN navalised the Tor missile system AKA HQ-17?
Having said that I would still put more trust in HHQ-10 than 1130. Two of the former over two of the latter would be safer in relation to intercepting AShM. With HHQ-10, they would probably salvo fire at each threat which means that system can handle 8 to 12 threats before needing reload (no idea on reload time but should take at least several minutes even with chambers underneath). Guns cannot handle that many threats without barrel melting and running out of ammo. It would be ideal to have two HHQ-10 systems and one 1130 for tricky missiles that even two or three HHQ-10 missiles failed to intercept. Not sure how much ammo would be carried but at 10k rounds/min the 1130 will only have enough ammo for a few bursts like all CIWS. Since space is such a luxury and there's only enough for two CIWS, this combo is best because a destroyer simply cannot forgo a gun. It is just more versatile and reliable at the end of the day despite its limited ability in handling multiple threats from multiple directions.
The reason we don't see PLAN spam their ships with CIWS like Russian Navy, is due to the understanding that the best and only way to properly defend their ships is not from interceptor missiles and CIWS but from attacking and destroying the opposition's aggressors. China does not have numerical superiority against USN, much less USN with allies. Even if PLAN's entire modern destroyer fleet were Type 055s geared out to intercept ordinance, they would all be sunk because there are far more bombs and harpoons the USN can shoot with. Just like how the US claimed to have launched over 100 Tomahawks just at a few targets in Syria, even if S-400 can intercept them all on a 1:1 exchange, the US can just keep sending the cruise missiles and fighters. To stop the attack, you need to sink those Burkes and destroy those airfields.
If PLAN wants to fight conventionally against a technologically and numerically superior opponent (not by that much now and Pacific fleet is about the same effective size but we need to count US airbases in that region), PLAN will need to support and launch attacking forces to knock out those airbases. The carrier battle groups remaining are a hard problem to deal with unless those AShBM work as claimed and Chinese subs are positioned well and get lucky shots off. PLAN and PLAAF will need to deal with the F-18s and F-35s in the air well ahead of the battle groups. PLAN's surface fleet will be supporting the fight in the air by shooting at USN fighters while complementing the Chinese air effort in sinking those battle groups.
