As David's answer points out, the chi-squared test is necessary for binned data as the KS test assumes continuous distributions. Regarding why the KS test is inappropriate (naught101's comment), there has been some discussion of the issue in the applied statistics literature that is worth raising here.
An amusing exchange began with the claim (García-Berthou and Alcaraz, 2004) that one third of Nature papers contain statistical errors. However, a subsequent paper (Jeng, 2006, "Error in statistical tests of error in statistical tests" -- perhaps my all-time favorite paper title) showed that Garcia-Berthou and Alcaraz (2005) used KS tests on discrete data, leading to their reporting inaccurate p-values in their meta-study. The Jeng (2006) paper provides a nice discussion of the issue, even showing that one can modify the KS test to work for discrete data. In this specific case, the distinction boils down to the difference between a uniform distribution of the trailing digit on [0,9],
$$
P(x) = \frac{1}{9},\ (0 \leq x \leq 9)
$$
(in the incorrect KS test) and a comb distribution of delta functions,
$$
P(x) = \frac{1}{10}\sum_{j=0}^9 \delta(x-j)
$$
(in the correct, modified form). As a result of the original error, Garcia-Berthou and Alcaraz (2004) incorrectly rejected the null, while the chi-squared and modified KS test do not. In any case, the chi-squared test is the standard choice in this scenario, even if KS can be modified to work here.