This is the first sentence from the Wiki article "Chalukya dynasty" under the section "Origins":
The Wikipedia article is about the Chalukya Dynasty that ruled parts of Southern and Central India, but
not Gujarat. There are only two obscure references to Gujarat, and none claim that rulers of Gujarat had Southern origins. The first quote, from the 'Legends' section, states that only some scholars connect Solankis with Chalukyas:
Some scholar connect the Chalukyas with the Solankis of Gujarat. According to a myth mentioned in latter manuscripts of Prithviraj Raso, Solankis were born out of fire-pit (Agnikund) at Mount Abu. However it has been reported that the story of Agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Prithviraj Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.[43]
But then, it also states that Chalukyas in the South have origins in Uttar Pradesh:
According to the Nilagunda inscription of King Vikramaditya VI (11th century or later), the Chalukyas originally hailed from Ayodhya where fifty-nine kings ruled, and later, sixteen more of this family ruled from South India where they had migrated. This is repeated by his court poet Bilhana, who claims that the first member of the family, "Chalukya", was so named as he was born in the "hollow of the hands" of God Brahma.[44][45]
In these circumstances, says prof. R. Sathianathaier, it is best to take the Chalukyas as allied to the Gurjaras.[30]
The second time Gujarat is mentioned- it is stated that Chalukyas may in-fact have origins in Gujarat:
Historians such as D R Bhandarkar and Hoernle hold the view that Chalukyas were one of the ruling clans of Gurjaras (or Gujjars), citing the name change of Lata province to Gurjaratra during the reign.Bhandarkar explains that If the chalukyas had not been Gurjars, it is inconceivable how that province could have named Gurjaratra (country ruled or protected by Gurjars) when it was up-till their advent known as Lata.However scholars such as D. P. Dikshit argues that Chalukyas ruled over that part of country formerly known as Lata and taken as Gurjaratra or Gujarat didn't imply the Chalukyas didn't make any change in the nomenclature because of their close association with the region.[29] Dr.V. A. Smith and A. M. T. Jackson also endorsed the view that Chalukyas were branch of famous Gurjars(or Gujjars).[30]
There are ten references to support the statement.
There in an on going edit-war on that Wikipedia page regarding disputed Chalukya origins.
Anyway, here's another source:
History of India - N. Jayapalan - Google Books
^I know a South Indian Brahmin, that claims ancestry in Gujarat. In-fact, all Southern Indian Brahmins are migrants from the North and genetics have proven this to be true. The Southern Brahmins are less ASI (they display a lower "South Indian" component) compared to the non-Brahmin, Southern population. Considering that, it then wouldn't be a surprise if the Southern rulers also had origins in the Northern regions of India.
Why did Rajput landowners convert I wonder? what was the driving factor?
My clan is from Surat region, have Rajput names and can trace ancestral migation from rajput clans from Rajasthan/north Gujarat. yet we are not high caste.
There was considerable missionary work earlier in the Century. Whole villages were converted from what I'm told, but I am not aware of the incentives, other than them really believing in the message that they received. Perhaps the British occupation played a part?
Why aren't you considered High Caste?
BTW the legend that says that Chalukyas had their origin in Ayodhya goes along with the claim how they get their name as well. So you do believe how the Chalukyans were actually born? 
