It’s entirely possible OP knows the reason but still disagrees with the name and so has chosen not to share the reason here so as to keep the responses negative.
What reason could there be, though? Even if it was a traditional family surname, you'd still say "well, she's a girl and because Christopher, when used as a first name, is unequivocally a boy's name, we'll need to think of something else". Use it as a middle name, if you really must, but why throw your daughter under the bus by giving her clearly a boy's name?
Any of us may end up hating the names our parents gave us enough to want to change them once we're 18, but I'd assume that, in most of those cases, the parents meant well and it was just a very marked difference in preferences. Whatever would make you think of deliberately giving them a name they would suffer with for 18 years and then be counting down the days until they could legally change it themselves?
It just seems such a passive aggressive move to pull on somebody whom you're supposed to love and, when they enter the world, cannot possibly have already done anything deliberately for you to dislike them.
It would be like deliberately bringing your child up to speak a single language as their mother tongue that is foreign to where they live and with which nobody in the family has the remotest connection - just because you think it's kind of quirky and a bit funky to have a British child growing up in the UK, with British parents and wider family, who turns up on their first day at school in the UK only being able to speak Japanese or Icelandic.