Child baptism has no meaning to the child when he or she is baptized.  It can have positive or negative meaning when he or she desires at any time when he or she matures.  It is therefore equivalent to a call for salvation from the parents.  The person may accept the parent’s altar call offer and be saved or reject and be condemned.  It is a prayer said in faith claiming the child’s redemption by the parents. We rely on god’s grace to work in the life of the children while they are still innocent and able to understand the love of God. The church is bound by the election to bring the children into the knowledge and nurture of the faith in Jesus. It has meaning for the community in realizing the child’s new position.  In this it is an initiation rite.  In baptizing the infant the church as a whole and especially the God parents commit themselves as evangelists to the child vowing to make them disciples in the name of the Lord.
 

Bible does not define any specific mode of baptism.  Only indication is that it involved water.  History or practice does not support total immersion only as a form of baptism ever.  Jesus was not baptized by total immersion – at least in the way we find it today. Historically total immersion is a product of Anabaptist period.  I personally believe that if the external modes and order etc were so important for our salvation, Our Lord would never have left them so vague and undefined. In most cases water baptism is not considered as "the baptism" at all. It is only a visible sign connected to particular local church "as a proof to the people".

If baptism is symbol and a seal or an initiation into discipleship we may use any culturally interpretable symbol. What
Anunayanam -  symbol of the sacred of thread – as used by Brahmins has all the meanings of it. We could use many other permanent visible symbols which could remain as a constant reminder of our commitment (as the circumcision did) like a ring or cross or special robe etc.   These are much better because they also provide intensification by constant reminder.  Sikhs have five marks why don't we use some similar method?  Salvation Army in the concept of an Army discipline uses the flag ceremony as baptism.
If we want to change,  What is your suggestion? 

Is there anything wrong in getting baptized again? 

Nothing.  It is only a statement that the faith of our fathers were not good enough.  That is why the Nicene creed is interpreted today literally as "Baptism indicating the remission of sin is to be once only" as a rite of passage.  But if it is required to confirm your faith and assurance of salvation there is nothing lost in rebaptism. Repeated baptism at every stage of growth as a "rite of transition" is a culturally acceptable method. In the modern culture where families fall apart, reaffirmation of marriage contract as a full marriage ceremony is rampant. Following this reasoning, if you need to renew your covenant with God every now and then, there is nothing wrong in rebaptism. Baptism was actually ordained as a rite of initiation. Communion Table is a rite of Intensification (similar to the festivals and sacrifices of the Old Testament). There were rites of transitions which required elaborate baptisms (of immersion, washing, sprinkling, annointing etc.) which the churches uses whenever a transition occurs like the ordination of elders, deacons and pastors etc. Why do we want to use baptism? But why not? If it helps to save – praise God – let us do it.

Most traditional churches that confess the Nicene Creed however will not accept you. (However the declaration "I believe in one baptism" was the result of the Roman Period when a person under persecution left the church and later wanted to come back into the church.  The question then was whether they should be rebaptised or not.  The decision of the Nicean council was that this is unnecessary. In that sense it is not really a prohibition of a second baptism)  You may be alienated from your church.  But some people really need it. They really need the personal assertion and statement through a more exhibitionistic baptism.  The more ceremonial better.  They cannot rely on the word, they need something visible especially if they were on the wrong path all or most of their lives. Prodigal Son needed the washing and the ring.

Luke 15:31-32 " `My son,' the father said, `you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

But there are others who were born in a Christian home, brought up in Christian heritage and faith that they have no specific event called second birth. They must have erred away from their father’s faith. But returned to it with renewed strength based on lives experience and evidences. A baptism do not harm them, but it has no relevance to them. Such erring and return are common in every believer’s life. If we are to follow the Jewish tradition, mikvah was a daily routine ritual purification for them as in the Indian Brahminical tradition. One goes through the ritual immersion every day probably more than once every day. Mikvah here simply denotes bapt ism of repentance. Each repentance is also a change of status from impure to pure. What I am trying to point out is that it will be stretching the point too far to require a baptism every day. In fact repentance and renewal and change of status in life should be an everyday experience in the spiritual life of the believer. The question is whether we need to do it by a visible symbolic water baptism, whether immersion or sprinkling? We are instructed to walk by faith and not by sight. I am not against use of visible symbols. They are indeed powerful in internalizing and transmitting deep spiritual messages. I would certainly employ them if it brings about Christian growth.

Should we baptize our children?  We may dedicate our children and they can then take adult baptism when they are old enough  or we can give them baptism and they can claim the baptism as theirs as they grow up - a confirmation.   In the first case you are throwing the ball to the child.  In the latter you affirm your faith in his salvation and act in faith. You have announced that you will discipline your child in the way of the Lord. In the former you do not take any responsibility of disciplining or teaching the child and leave it to your child entirely. The choice is totally yours.