This might be a bit naive.
When reading about subobjects, it almost seems to me that a monomorphism $m: A \to B$ into a set/object $B$ is identified with (or corresponds to/represents) its subsets/sub-object.
I wonder if a similar correspondence exists between surjections and supersets. That is, if $f : A \to B$ is a surjection, is $B$ smaller than $A$ (in terms of cardinality)?
This seems to be true for (finite) sets: since everything in $B$ is an image of something in $A$, and two elements in $A$ could be mapped to the same element in $B$, so there are more elements in $A$.
In general, is the intuition right that $B$ is smaller, ... and $A$ can be viewed as some kind of superset?
If so, is there a counterpart concept of superojects that generalizes supersets?
This is indeed true - assuming choice. In lieu of the axiom of choice, however, not every surjection splits, and so we may have the following situation: a surjection from $A$ to $B$, an injection from $A$ to $B$, but no injection from $B$ to $A$. In this case, $A$ is smaller than $B$ ($A$ injects into $B$ and not the other way around)! This is really counterintuitive but can happen - e.g. under the Axiom of Determinacy, $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q}$ (the reals up to rational difference) is larger than $\mathbb{R}$.
For this reason, I think what you really want is the dual of a subobject: a monomorphism from $B$ to $A$.