By "we humans" I assume you mean Dow Chemical or whoever the primary inventor of CFC replacements was at the time. Yes, it was a good thing, but there was a relatively easy and uncontroversial fix. What we are talking about here involves people with huge vested interests in fossil fuels - people dependent on them for living and commerce, entire nations solely dependent on them just to function - there are much larger systematic problems at play that must be overcome to reverse the current trend. I'm still mildly optimistic that we can improve the situation, but if the ozone was like steering a rowboat, this is like trying to do a 180 in an aircraft carrier.
The damage they caused was disproportionate, compared to the economic benefit of using them over alternatives.
The nature of the ozone hole also didn't let people hide behind nonsense like "The climate changes naturally" and "Well, there are natural sources of carbon" and "The climate was different in the past."
I'm sure they would have found a way if the incentives were as strong.
1. It wasn't actually happening/a problem.
(It's hippy nonsense. [insert sarcastic comment about saving butterflies])
2. It was happening, but it was natural, not caused by human activity
(The ozone hole grows and shrinks naturally throughout the year! And its been bigger and smaller in the past!)
3. It was happening, caused by human activity, but there wasn't anything we could do about it
(We can't force the other countries to change, and if they won't change it'll keep growing anyway!)
Even the "equivalent replacements" for CFCs were widely regarded as overpriced and far worse at the time. (I still hear people bemoan the loss of freon AC to this day.) It's not so different from solar/wind vs fossil fuels.