I will speak from a historical perspective in defense of multiplication as corresponding to area.
Human cultures did not develop a symbolic understanding of multiplication for quite some time (perhaps even as late as the ancient Greeks, though I may be off here). The earliest recorded bits of evidence demonstrating human knowledge of multiplication show that multiplication was first understood geometrically: the quantity that we would now call $a\times b$ was defined to be the area of the rectangle of height $a$ and width $b$ to all early civilizations that knew of the concept, including the Mesopotamians (incl. Babylonians) and Egyptians.
From this we might argue that the area of a rectangle is the most intuitive way to understand multiplication. The convenient aspect of this definition is that it is universal across all number systems that are a subset of the real numbers. As soon as one fixes a unit of length, there is a correspondence between any real number and a particular length (though the definition may be unwieldy for irrational numbers), and thus for any two real numbers $a$ and $b$ the rectangle of height $a$ and width $b$ is intuitively defined. In particular it is very easy to define geometrically the length corresponding to the fraction $a/b$, so this approach works very naturally for rational numbers, and indeed this is how ancient cultures understood multiplication of fractions. This universality in the definition is an advantage that the concept of integer multiplication as "repeated addition" lacks.
Later on, of course, humans developed the algebraic understanding of multiplication and generalized it to more abstract algebraic structures; from a certain point of view one could try to understand multiplication as this sort of algebraic formalism, but then again this is not so much "trying to understand" as "deciding not to bother."