Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to creative domains, yet their performance in classical Chinese poetry generation and evaluation remains poorly understood. We propose a three-step evaluation framework that combines computational metrics, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and human expert validation. Using this framework, we evaluate six state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple dimensions of poetic quality, including themes, emotions, imagery, form, and style, in the context of Tang poetry generation. Our analysis reveals a critical "echo chamber" effect: LLMs systematically overrate machine-generated poems that mimic statistical patterns yet fail strict prosodic rules, diverging significantly from human expert judgments. These findings underscore the limitations of using LLMs as standalone evaluators for culturally complex tasks, highlighting the necessity of hybrid human-model validation frameworks.