So we know that without Ataturk post WWI Turkey could have been in real trouble. But China also needed a savior at the time, being occupied by the Great Powers and having Japan receive Germany's share.
Could an Ataturk equivalent rise up in the Chinese ranks, push the Japanese out of China, and demand a better treaty with the Europeans? Or would the Great Powers considered that good for a relatively European country like Turkey, but not want to leave China.
While Ataturk does stand out as a powerful argument in favour of the "Great Man" theory of history, I think your question is getting at something more fundamental and is actually quite interesting.
Ataturk did not arise
ex nihilo, but rather was the product of late Ottoman civic and military culture, most notably the ideas of the CUP. I would argue that had Ataturk died, say to some ANZAC sniper at Gallipoli, Turkey would not be "in real trouble." There were plenty of other officers like Ataturk who could have easily risen to the occasion (
Kazim Karabekir is my favourite candidate) but without Ataturk it's likely that Turkey takes a drastically different course than OTL. I would argue that in order to produce a "Chinese Ataturk" you need to produce the kind of conditions that formed the OTL version which would require a much earlier POD and a prolonged period of Chinese decline.
As for the rest of the world allowing a much more aggressive China under the leadership of this hypothetical Chinese Ataturk, if the aforementioned POD doesn't prevent a massive war from breaking out shortly before his rise, I don't think the Allies would have much of a choice. I would argue that the perceived "Europeanness" had nothing to do with Ataturk's successes in OTL. Rather it was Allied war weariness that allowed Ataturk to successfully defy the Treaty of Sevres. Britain, France, and America were simply not ready to fight another war in 1919 regardless of whether it be in Asia Minor or China.