While peer review enhances writing and research quality, harsh feedback can frustrate and demotivate authors. Hence, it is essential to explore how critiques should be delivered to motivate authors and enable them to keep iterating their work. In this study, we explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task, alongside varying levels of overall evaluations (high vs. low), on authors' feedback reception, revision outcomes, and motivation to revise. Through a 2x2 online experiment with 137 participants, we found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance, whereas low overall evaluations of their work led to increased revision efforts. We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how AI-driven critiques can influence critique acceptance and support research communities in fostering productive and friendly peer feedback practices.