Actually, the negation of "If X, then Y" is "If X, MAYBE not Y." Let me give you an example:
Proposed Conditional: If you play the lottery, you will win millions of dollars.
Do you agree with this proposed conditional? Probably not! So we want to negate it. Should we say "If you play the lottery, you will NOT win millions of dollars"? Wait, that doesn't seem right. People do win the lottery; it's just not a very common outcome. If we say "It's not true that if you play the lottery, you will win millions of dollars," what we mean is "It is possible to play the lottery and NOT win millions of dollars." The proposed sufficient condition (playing the lottery) can happen without the proposed necessary condition (winning millions).
Negated Conditional: If you play the lottery, you MAY NOT win millions of dollars.
Now what about a conditional that you think is wrong in ALL cases?
Crazy Conditional: If you are in China, you are in Africa.
WHAT?!? This is clearly false and we want to negate it, but it seems funny to say "If you are in China, you MAY NOT be in Africa," right? It feels better to say "If you are in China, you ARE NOT in Africa." Of course, that is true. However, the previous version (MAY NOT) is true, too. If you ARE NOT in Africa, then you MAY NOT be there. It's this weaker version that we can commit to every time that we negate a conditional. The stronger version may be true, too, but that's always the case with negations. Consider the negation of "I love today's popular music." The negation is "I do not love today's popular music." It may be the case that I *hate* this music, but that's additional information that's not required for a negation.
So, long story short:
NOT (X --> Y) = X --> MAYBE NOT Y
or
NOT (X --> Y) = X is possible without Y