Long March 7 and Long March 6A are on paper somewhat similar.
So why does Long March 6A exist? Is it a lot cheaper?
In the early planning, there was only CZ-7 family. There was a variant of CZ-7 using SRBs called CZ-722S(HO). This variant would have 2 SRBs and a HO 2nd stage. The paper also said that there is no limitation of other configurations. The naming convention from the paper says than the 2nd digit means number of stages, the 3rd digit means number of boosters, suffix S means SRB booster, (HO) means LH2/LOX 2nd stage, without suffix or (HO) means the relevant stage/booster is Kerosene/LOX.
CZ-722S(HO) has not materialized (yet or never). However, HO 2nd stage is done in CZ-8 aka CZ-722(HO). SRB booster is done in CZ-6A aka CZ-724S.
The intermediate answer to your question is that it was planned to some degree from the very beginning. The reason for that plan was to
master technology for SRB+Liquid rocket which is an area China has never mastered until today. Being cheaper is a bonus or secondary reason, but not the root cause.
Another consideration to have CZ-6A is shorter preparation time for a launch compared with CZ-8. I think this is noted in the report of the recent launch. In case of CZ-6A only 2 LOX tanks are needed to be kept feeding and pressure regulated when the rocket is on the stand. In case of CZ-8 it is 4 LOX tanks and 1 LH2 tank. So the preparation complexity is reduced in CZ-6A. SRBs can be produced and stored for a long time.