Well, it's interesting the talk of "rejecting" because indeed, it implies perception.

(Doctors used to talk quite a bit about babies rejecting the breast, but we don't hear much about that anymore.)

However, in terms of behaviors we call rejecting, really, I'd say it's more apt to say the adult interacting (doesn't have to be a parent) *feels* rejected, but the behaviors are not intended as rejecting, that's just an interpretation of them. (As someone posted earlier, those babies still monitor as experiencing distress and needing care, but they're not behaving in ways that are as easy to read as wanting or needing said care.)

However, yes, there has been a correlation established through research that babies exhibiting some of these behaviors are more commonly abused.

In other words, some babies are indeed harder to raise and respond to than others *in an equally nurturing manner* than other babies who may exhibit more behaviors that are classified as engaging, positive, attractive, etc.

That doesn't make those babies responsible for being abused! Nothing of the sort.
And it doesn't make those babies bad, terrible, broken or anything else. Those are all value judgements that I don't think apply. It's certainly a highly charged topic, understandably.

And of course the issue is complex and this is only one facet of it. Certainly there are a huge number of risk factors for abuse. It's not like a random parent with a less responsive infant is always going to abuse that infant. Not at all. It's just one factor in a host, and of course, there's a wide spectrum of behavior by parent and child, not all or nothing, not simple.