A321 Captain reported refusing an aircraft due to extensive maintenance performed and damage to the main landing gear doors. The flight crew eventually ferried the aircraft to a company maintenance base for service.

Narrative

I noted the evening prior to the flight that the aircraft had been at ZZZ for almost two weeks. Clearly; something was out of the ordinary. When we showed at the gate the morning of the flight; the aircraft was not there. After some time passed; the aircraft was towed from a hangar. As I arrived at the aircraft; I commenced to review the logbook. It became clear that this aircraft had had major work done to it since its last flight. Primarily; there were two major occurrences. The aircraft had been taken to ZZZ for replacement of the landing gear. The work took approximately two weeks; and it was returned to service. The aircraft flew several cycles; when apparently damage was discovered to the landing gear doors; as they had apparently been rigged improperly. As a result; the aircraft was then ferried back to ZZZ for warranty work for the vendor to repair the damage caused by their incorrect gear door rigging. The aircraft then sat in ZZZ for another further nearly two weeks while repairs were made. During that time; some parts were cannibalized from the aircraft (batteries); and apparently then replaced. As far as what exactly was done to the aircraft; during the gear replacement process; and then the repair to the damage caused by the incorrect gear door rigging; I couldn't determine any of that from the logbook. None of the work is documented in the logbook; nor in the system. The only thing appearing in the logbook was a sticker from the vendor indicating return to service. I had no idea what had been done; nor how it was determined that the aircraft was airworthy and ready for revenue service.I immediately realized that I was out of my depth. Nothing in my training or experience prepared me for answering the most basic question regarding this aircraft: IS IT SAFE TO FLY; and is it safe to fly revenue paying passengers? The logbook told me next to nothing; save that the aircraft hadn't moved from ZZZ in nearly two weeks; that it had likewise been in ZZZ for a further several weeks; and that it had to be removed from revenue service due to damage resulting from errors made in installing the new landing gear.I was now being asked to accept and fly an aircraft with revenue passengers without having a full understanding of the maintenance status of an aircraft that had more extensive maintenance accomplished than any aircraft I have flown in over 30 years of flying. I was unwilling and frankly unable to accept the risks of such an endeavor with passengers on board. In my opinion; a maintenance acceptance flight should have been made with a qualified technical pilot and probably a representative from the vendor on board prior to returning the aircraft to revenue service. This was doubly the case since there were errors made in the original replacement of the landing gear and rigging of the gear doors. It should not be expected of a line pilot to know the procedures and processes involved in the return to service of replacements and/or repair of critical components of an aircraft; much less flying revenue passengers on what is essentially a test flight.I want to add here that I had a Maintenance Representative very aggressively try to push me to accept the aircraft. He stated several times that the Vendor has been performing these services for over 30 years with not a single error. When I asked him why the aircraft had to be ferried back to the vendor for warranty work for damage resulting from improperly rigged gear doors; he had no response. A Customer Service Supervisor then attempted to talk me into taking the aircraft; claiming that I had to explain to the passengers why they weren't going to be on the flight to ZZZ1. I told him they weren't on the aircraft; and it was certainly not my job to make an announcement in the terminal. The situation was stressful enough without pilot pushing by the Maintenance Supervisor and the Customer Service Manager.One further thing to add here is that weather in ZZZ1 was severe. There was a rapidly moving weather system that was causing holding and diversions. When we were finally able to depart; winds in ZZZ1 were out of limits for landing. After holding for approximately 30 minutes; we were able to land with crosswinds of approximately 26 kts.The final solution was for us to fly the aircraft (as a reposition leg) to ZZZ1 with only the working crew (pilots and flight attendants) and one deadheading flight attendant on board. It seemed a reasonable compromise; and the situation was explained to the flight attendants so they could make the decision as to whether or not they wanted to fly on the aircraft. After a return to the gate (after engine start; engine 2 HP valve didn't open); Maintenance asked us to run the engine for them; which we did. The valve decided to unstick itself. We departed and had a relatively routine flight to ZZZ1 (if holding and landing with a 26 kt. crosswind can be considered relatively routine.It is absolutely unreasonable to expect a line pilot to take delivery of an aircraft with maintenance as extensive as was performed on this aircraft. This is doubly so when the aircraft had to be returned to the vendor because the original gear replacement was not completed correctly; causing damage. It is even more unreasonable to expect a line pilot to fly revenue paying passengers on what is essentially a test flight. I consider this situation to have been absolutely UNSAFE. There is nothing in my training or background that gives me sufficient knowledge or experience to judge whether this aircraft was airworthy or not. In addition; there was practically no information regarding what was done to the aircraft; save a return to service sticker in the logbook. I find it unacceptable that I was put in the position of having to decline the aircraft; and the unreasonable pressure that was brought to bear on me by station personnel was a prime example of pilot pushing. That said; my wonderful and experienced First Officer; the safety folks at [Company]; and the Duty Pilot were super helpful and I felt very supported by them in my decision making process. For maintenance as extensive on a system as critical as the landing gear; a line pilot should not be expected to make a determination as to the airworthiness of the aircraft. Most especially; revenue passengers should never have been scheduled to fly on such an aircraft. This was a job for a tech pilot. No line pilot should be put in such a position. Ever.