fix: Migrate key names correctly

[likhita-809]

Description

Closes: #10219

Migrate key names correctly when migrating from v0.42.9 to master keyring

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #10328 (0d375f1) into master (1326fa2) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #10328   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   64.19%   64.19%           
=======================================
  Files         575      575           
  Lines       54919    54923    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        35254    35257    +3     
- Misses      17662    17663    +1     
  Partials     2003     2003           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
client/keys/delete.go	71.79% <ø> (ø)
client/keys/rename.go	69.76% <ø> (ø)
crypto/keyring/types.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
server/init.go	55.55% <ø> (ø)
crypto/keyring/keyring.go	62.01% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
crypto/keyring/legacy_info.go	62.36% <100.00%> (+0.40%)	⬆️

[amaury1093]

I think it's better to not expose InfoKey everywhere, just inside the relevant functions in crypto/keyring package

[robert-zaremba]

utACK

[aleem1314]

lgtm

[amaury1093]

tACK. I tested the repro described in the original issue. Thanks @likhita-809!

Some small nits.