That's what PP described (even if they didn't realize it):
"It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive;"
It's not about morality or protecting children from harm; that's just the lie that's used to sell it.
The one line of reasoning I can think of that does limit itself in this regard is the one says "there are no good adult substitutes for child actors, hence an exception," but this is a very cynical moral ground for child labor laws, as there are probably many potential exceptions that could be forced here that we would find profoundly repugnant and we would have to abandon that line of reasoning or be forced to admit we are more interested in industry outcomes than the welfare of children or our moral worth.
There is no 'moral' answer. We, as a society decided that children acting is fine and that it is not outrageous and we like watching entertainment with children instead of exclusively adults. People are concerned for good reason because hollywood is predatory and when lots of money is involved then people act out of bad interests instead of the child's interests, but that is tertiary to the fact that acting is allowed for children to do and we allow them to get paid for it.
Being paid changes the dynamic in a deep way from being a hobby. It opens up the floodgates of manipulation and abuse.
How is it at all tertiary? It's the primary point: we don't allow children to work for pay because of the potential for abuse; children get paid to act; many child actors are abused as a result of extracting money from them and their labor.
We make an exception because it is convenient, not well understood by the public, and we all benefit from the resultant entertainment.