Does "a bigger shell" mean a larger calibre? That would probably cost even more because it is going to be a whole new weapon system. You will need to develop a new gun for the larger calibre and it will be heavier than the existing 155mm gun. The larger and heavier shell will also require more propellant. You will then likely need a larger and heavier chassis to carry the gun, shells and propellant. Last but not the least, for this whole new system, you will have to find a place in the existing order of battle in the ground force. Are you going to replace the existing 155mm guns?
There's added benefits to a large calibre shell between 155-203mm.
Fundamentally, the shell will have better range than your enemy firing 155mm at the same technological level.
Bigger blast radius, cheaper and easier to minaturize current and future technology in it.
While of course, it brings cons like you mentioned, changing the whole logistic, making new gun platforms and carriers, supply chain have to retool for bigger shell.
They can slowly roll it out to be adopted on units that have older artillery that needs to be replaced.
It is a question that only PLA can answer but I just want to throw it out there to see if this is being considered.
Not expensive to make an artillery shell more aerodynamic to increase range.
Other ways to extend range without changing caliber.
Lengthen the barrel, which delays release of the shell from the barrel and increases build up of internal pressures.
A heavier and longer propellant bag.
Base bleed or rocket assist.
Ramjet shell sounds extreme, the range extend must be far greater than what these measures and a bigger caliber could provide.
Of course the cheaper methods should be used, I am comparing it to the ramjet round. Seems super excessive and expensive to increase its range for a 155mm round.