Why wouldn't it be a dominant gene?
Any source that talks about the genetics of that trait will call it dominant. To be more precise, it is incompletely dominant (a chicken with one copy of the gene shows the effect, but a chicken with two copies of the gene shows a stronger effect.)
There's a good explanation in this thread:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/showgirl-silkie-naked-neck-gene.295746/
And it's in this table of chicken genes:
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page3.html
"Naked neck Na Incompletely dominant. Turkens. Causes bare skin on the neck which becomes reddish toward sexual maturity. Heterozygotes show a small tuft of feathers on the neck above the crop, which is almost missing in the homozygote."
Based on that, Skeksis would be a heterozygote (one copy of the naked neck gene, one copy of the normal not-naked version.)
If she produces chicks, and their father does not have a naked neck, you would expect about half of them to have normal necks, and half to have necks as naked as Skeksis' neck is.