[guided]The reason for defining $\Phi(z,w)=(z,F(z,w))$ is that it keeps the parameter $z$ unchanged and replaces the unknown $w$ by the value of the equation $F(z,w)$. If $\Phi$ can be inverted near $(a,b)$, then solving $F(z,w)=0$ becomes the same as asking for the preimage of $(z,0)$.
We now check the derivative carefully. Define
\begin{align*}
D_zF_{(a,b)}: \mathbb{C}^m \to \mathbb{C}^n
\end{align*}
to be the complex derivative of $F$ at $(a,b)$ in the $z$-variables, and define
\begin{align*}
D_wF_{(a,b)}: \mathbb{C}^n \to \mathbb{C}^n
\end{align*}
to be the complex derivative of $F$ at $(a,b)$ in the $w$-variables. The given matrix
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial w_j}(a,b)\right)_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}
\end{align*}
is the standard-basis matrix of $D_wF_{(a,b)}$. Hence the hypothesis that this matrix is invertible is exactly the statement that the complex-linear map $D_wF_{(a,b)}$ is invertible.
For a tangent vector $(u,v) \in \mathbb{C}^m \times \mathbb{C}^n$, differentiating the first component of $\Phi$ gives $u$, because the first component is the identity map in the $z$-variable. Differentiating the second component gives the first-order variation of $F$ in both variables. Therefore
\begin{align*}
d\Phi_{(a,b)}(u,v)=(u,D_zF_{(a,b)}u+D_wF_{(a,b)}v).
\end{align*}
To see why this map is invertible, solve explicitly for the input from the output. Given $(p,q) \in \mathbb{C}^m \times \mathbb{C}^n$, the equation
\begin{align*}
d\Phi_{(a,b)}(u,v)=(p,q)
\end{align*}
first gives $u=p$. Substituting this into the second component gives
\begin{align*}
D_wF_{(a,b)}v=q-D_zF_{(a,b)}p.
\end{align*}
Since $D_wF_{(a,b)}$ is invertible, there is exactly one solution:
\begin{align*}
v=(D_wF_{(a,b)})^{-1}(q-D_zF_{(a,b)}p).
\end{align*}
Thus every target $(p,q)$ has exactly one preimage under $d\Phi_{(a,b)}$, so $d\Phi_{(a,b)}$ is invertible. This is the precise point where the invertibility of the $w$-Jacobian is used.[/guided]