"Christianity" is far too broad of a term for this question to be answered. There were plenty of Christians who accepted some form of Darwinian evolution during Darwin's lifetime, for example the Unitarian zoologist William Benjamin Carpenter, who wrote a friendly review of On The Origins of Species in a Christian newsletter (although notably he interpreted evolution as an instrument of god). Asa Gray was a very devout American Presbyterian, yet he was also a botanist who was instrumental in disseminating On the Origins of Species throughout American academia.

Could you be more specific?

I think a prominent misconception of this problem is how Christianity reacted to the concept of Evolutionary Darwinism. In the United States at least before the Scopes Trial, theologians split into two camps, those who wished to reconcile the scientific model and those who wished to deny it completely which has become known as the "warfare" camp of fundamentalism in this regard.

This first group, which i'll call Reconciliationists, would make comparisons between those scientists pressing for evolutionary thought and the Great Scientists of Old such as Galileo, Bacon, and Newton making the argument that Theism and Scientific thought are incompatible. They also press for the distinction between "Miracles" Special circumstances that occur in the Bible, unknowable and unexplainable to anyone but God. And Science, which is the observable and explainable.

The Warfare Camp went on the full offensive in attacking Darwinist thinkers and thought, they regularly attacked Darwin directly and referred to the Origins of Man as an "Anti-Genesis" "The teaching of Darwinism, as an approved science, to the children and youth of the schools of the world is the most deplorable feature of the whole wretched propaganda"

To give an example from the early 1900s by a Rev. Henry Beach

To sum up the case for natural selection

(1) It is poor morals. A theory of nature must be ideal to be true. Natural selection is a scheme for the survival of the passionate and the violent, the destruction of the weak and defenseless. To be true, black must be white, and wrong must be right, and God an Ivan the terrible.

(2) Its assumptions are false. It is false that unlimited attenuation of the steps of the process, and unlimited time for the accomplishment of it, assure us that it might have been possible. “Attenuation” and “time” would have been but conditions, not causes. They could prove nothing.

(3) Natural selection is self-contradictory and impossible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the scheme and wrote Charles Darwin about it. Mr. Darwin published the plan. He afterwards refers to Mr. Wallace as having. “an innate genius for solving difficulties”. (Descent,” p. 344). Two years ago, Mr. Wallace, in an address at the Darwin anniversary, before the Royal Institution in London, referring to Professor Haeckel said: “These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irresistible conclusion that beyond and above all terrestrial agencies, there is some great source of energy and guidance, which in unknown ways pervades every form of organized life, and which we ourselves are the ultimate and foreordained outcome”. Thus, an author of the theory, himself, admits the contradiction of claiming a “selection” and denying a selector.

After the Scopes Trial, it is the "Warfare" fundamentalists that would go on to propagate pro-creationist ideas while the Reconciliationists would go through further development. Another point to be made in regards to the United States is the difference in belief on Biblical Literalism in regards to race, African-Americans were (and are) far more likely to be biblical literalists in general, but when it comes to evolution, they would typically turn to Darwinist thought as a defense against racial bigotry created by the Bible.