Is it possible for a move to be recomended by engines but rejected by professional human players? Am wondering if it is possible for a move to be considered "good" by engines but is rejected by professional human players. One possible reason that I can think of is that the in order for this move to be successful, one has to play exactly right for the next 20 moves or so, which is easy for engines but difficult for human players.
I see three situations, where something like you describe could happen:


wild tactical positions with open king, where moves have to be very precise and many humans might be too scared to enter such position
Many composed studies feature surprising moves that could be rejected by humans. For instance studies in which you give up all your material except for say a bishop with which you mate somehow. In most positions you can't win with a bishop only, so lines leading to such positions would not be considered usually.
some of the more tricky endgames feature very unnatural/inhuman moves that would be rejected by human players. One example are the computer lines after move 67 in game 6 of the last WC match Carlsen-Caruana. Some quotes regarding the winning lines suggested by computers: 


Svidler:


  Even when I saw what the machine suggested was winning there I honestly don't think it was humanly possible to find it on the 10 minutes that Fabi had, and it's incredibly weird how the position is conceptually lost after Kg6.


Kasparov:


  The computer shows Black wins with 68..Bh4 here. But had Caruana played the incredible 69.Bd5 Ne2 70.Bf3 Ng1!! they would request metal detectors immediately! No human can willingly trap his own knight like that.


Svidler:


  A move that a human is more or less incapable of making


Grischuk:


  I would never even dream about Bh4


Carlsen:


  I’m not going to disagree with the computer, I just don’t understand it!