Because the Chinese Room is a much better analogy for what LLMs are doing inside than the Turing test is.
But worse, the Turing Test is not remotely intended to be an "analogy for what LLMs are doing inside" so your comparison makes no sense whatsoever, and completely fails to address the actual point--which is that, for ages the Turing Test was held out as the criterion for determining whether a system was "thinking", but that has been abandoned in the face of LLMs, which have near perfect language models and are able to closely model modes of human interaction regardless of whether they are "thinking" (and they aren't, so the TT is clearly an inadequate test, which some argued for decades before LLMs became a reality).
To be specific, in a curious quirk of fate, LLMs seem to be proving right much of what Chomsky was saying about language.
E.g. in 1996 he described the Turing test as "although highly influential, it seems to me not only foreign to the sciences but also close to senseless".
(Curious in that VC backed businesses are experimentally verifying the views of a prominent anti-capitalist socialist.)
As far as I can see all of this [he's speaking about the Loebner Prize and
the Turing test in general] is entirely pointless. It's like asking how we
can determine empirically whether an aeroplane can fly the answer being if
it can fool someone into thinking that it's an eagle under some conditions.
The analogy I used in another thread is a third grader who finds a high school algebra book. She can read the book easily, but without access to teachers or background material that she can engage with -- consciously, literately, and interactively, unlike the Chinese Room operator -- she will not be able to answer the exercises in the book correctly, the way an LLM can.