Rename Qblox module classes

[PiergiorgioButtarini]

Qblox modules now have conventional names. Also I removed a deprecated test file.

Closes #742 Checklist:

• [ ] Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
• [ ] Tests are passing.
• [ ] Coverage does not decrease.
• [ ] Documentation is updated.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (92f35df) 62.45% compared to head (dfef079) 62.45%. Report is 47 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/qibolab/instruments/qblox/controller.py	66.66%	2 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #766 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 62.45% 62.45% ======================================= Files 47 47 Lines 5867 5867 ======================================= Hits 3664 3664 Misses 2203 2203 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/qiboteam/qibolab/pull/766/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/qiboteam/qibolab/pull/766/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam) | `62.45% <77.77%> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[alecandido]

does not strongly violate the naming convention (for that I am not sure though)

Indeed, as I said above, acronyms involve a certain degree of arbitrariness

But generally, excluding extremely bad choices (eg. class cluster_qcm_bb), I don't have strong opinion because no matter how intuitive we try to make names, most users will still need to look at the docs/code to know what to import.

For sure.

I would avoid even the current one, because still wrong (because of the _) even if mildly wrong. For the rest is a matter of taste, I will leave the choice to @PiergiorgioButtarini :)

[stavros11]

Instruments are now working and QPU tests are passing, so we can probably merge this if the names are final.

[alecandido]

I agree with @stavros11, this could be merged. It's a relatively small (and primarily internal) change, that has been already propagated consistently.