As I said in my comment above the question of convergent evolution is a tautology. Now certain functions have evolved several times independently. For example, flight has evolved several times and in different ways. Similarly for eyes where the vertebrate eye and octopus eye perform the same function but are structurally different.
In essence what we need to consider is whether on a planet sufficiently similar to our own Earth in terms of its age and physical characteristics, and possessing a well developed biosphere is likely to evolve humanoid lifeforms. So does convergent evolution have a preference** for humanoids?
The real question is whether the tetrapod bodyform is a morphology that has a high probability of arising on earthlike planets. The humanoid morphology is a modified tetrapod, and able to stand upright, at least, enough of the time. What we call humanoid is a bipedal tetrapod, i.e., a four limbed organism that walks on two legs.
Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's Evolving the Alien: The science of extraterrestrial life (2002)***, reprinted in paperback as What Does A martian Look Like?, proposed evolution will create two broad categories of organisms and ecosystems. They call these two categories parochial and universal. The universal is easiest to understand this are biological adaptations that will appear whether environmental conditions are similar. While the parochial will be unique or extremely rare adaptations.
For example, we can expect adaptations for flight and eyesight to occur on any life-bearing earthlike planet with a mature biosphere. This is a universal adaptation. But woodpeckers may be rare. This assertion is based on the rarity of woodpeckers-like species on this planet. Then this is a parochial adaptation. If this set of conditions applies on other earthlike planets, then woodpeckeroids will few and far between.
If the humanoid bodyplan is a universal adaptation, then we should reasonably expect them to be present on earthlike planets. If it's parochial adaptation, then no convergent evolution won't favour humanoids on earthlike planets.
Is there any way of determining whether the humanoid form is either a universal or parochial adaptation? Scientifically no. Short of exploring earthlike planet similar to our own, and interviewing their sapient inhabitants.
If there is an abundance of humanoids in the cosmos, then we can safely say that convergent evolution does produce humanoid lifeforms. If the most prevalent sapient lifeform on earthlike planets is something that resembles the cross between a giant spider and a jellyfish, the answer is no. Also, on the downside we're the ugly ones in the universe.
This answer has come down on the side of scientific uncertainty. There is no litmus test to determine the question either one way or the other. This is why any question about convergent evolution is a tautology. But you need to have lots of examples of the same form or function evolving multiple times and each effectively independently of the others. It's possible, but who knows?
The prevalence of humanoid lifeforms in science fiction is old-fashioned hominid chauvinism and a lack of imagination on the part of writers. In cinema or TV, it's due to the deplorable lack of non-humanoid actors, despite all their claims of trying to encourage diversity, and the high cost of special effects in realising non-humanoid aliens.
Frankly all we know how humanoids can walk, talk and chew gum. But when it comes to those convergently evolved giant spider-jellyfish hybrid creatures, what do they do?
**: The use of the word 'preference' is only a figure of speech. Evolution only favours probabilities and not specific outcomes. That way teleology and madness lie.
***: Essential reading for any budding xenobiologist or junior worldbuilder. Highly recommended.