Binding Name Query in CoreWCF

**Which sample is the bug for**

**Describe the bug**
I'm currently transitioning from ASMX to CoreWCF and noticed a difference in the binding naming convention. In ASMX, we've been able to name our bindings simply, for example: "GetAppReportSoap". However, in CoreWCF, it seems that the binding name also requires the contract name, resulting in something like: "GetAppReportSoap_IGetAppReportSoap".

Could you please clarify if this is the expected behavior, or if there is a way to use simple binding names in CoreWCF similar to what we had in ASMX?

**To Reproduce**
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
1. Build application'
2. Copy the WSDL service.
3. Check the WSDL service URL in the Soap application.
4. See the change in the image below.

**Expected behavior**
The expected behavior is shown in green, whereas the actual behavior is highlighted in red below the image.
**Repo environment (please complete the following information):**
- OS: Windows
- .NET Version 6.0
- IDE or command line builds

**Additional context**

Beginne damit, das Problem anhand der in den Reproduktionsschritten beschriebenen CoreWCF-Beispielanwendung zu reproduzieren, und untersuche die generierte WSDL-Service-URL. Vergleiche die erwarteten und tatsächlichen Binding-Namen im angehängten Bild und ermittle anschließend, ob der Vertragsname erwartet wird oder ob einfache Binding-Namen konfiguriert werden können; dokumentiere das Ergebnis und jede erforderliche Änderung am Beispiel.

Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.