This would completely turn Stalin's OTL policy on its head. Why he would choose to do that I do not know; I think he would have to go literally insane.
The Soviets would definitely do VERY poorly. This is less than TWO MONTHS after the Winter War where they lost hundreds of planes, thousands of tanks, and suffered more than 300,000 casualties, losses they had very much not recovered from by this point AFAIK. This was against an enemy with nine divisions, four brigades, and assorted smaller units, along with a whopping 32 tanks and 114 total aircraft of which only 49 were remotely useful combat aircraft (and even their best fighter, the Fokker D.XII, was hardly the best or newest aircraft around). And the Soviets still broke their teeth on that force. The Red Army committee to study the lessons of the Winter War had only convened in April and the findings of that group hadn't been fully implemented even by the start of Barbarossa thirteen months after the hypothetical events we're discussing, never mind within weeks of the committee's first meeting!
So you've got a scarred, unreformed Red Army that couldn't break a force of nine divisions, four brigades, and some independent units of much greener soldiers going up against 21 divisions of well-led combat veterans (if the figures of
@Carl Schwamberger are right) supported by thousands of aircraft that were worlds better than anything the Finns ever fielded during the Winter War. Yes, I see that going very well indeed...
The Nazis also have hundreds of miles of strategic depth to play with now at they've conquered Western Poland.
I'm not actually at all sure that this would lose Germany the Battle of France. The core things that led to the German victory are in many ways still the same. Manstein's sickle cut plan, the real key, has been adopted, Denmark has been rolled up and victory in Norway basically assured, the plans for Fall Gelb have still fallen into the hands of the Belgians and led to a belief that the thrust would be through the Low Countries as in WWI instead of through the Ardennes, the BEF hasn't fully deployed, and the Germans are fully ready to begin the campaign. Hitler in OTL thought that the Soviet Army was a complete joke after the Winter War, which helped inform his thinking for Barbarossa, and he was also a gambler by nature who knew he couldn't wait too much longer in the West or victory in France would be impossible. He also knows he has a force already in Poland that is far superior to what the Finns had along with some strategic depth. It would be well within his nature, known existing beliefs, and the contours of the situation for him to decide to let the forces already in Poland handle it unless they looked seriously in danger of collapse, which is very unlikely to happen.
Overall, Germany probably doesn't do as well if only because they have no element of strategic surprise over the Soviet Union and the Stalin Line hasn't been dismantled. I don't see them getting near Moscow. However, the scenario actually has some interesting upsides for the Nazis. Being at war with the USSR at that stage would butterfly the North African Campaign (no way Hitler is going to waste troops on such a backwater with his dreaded Judeo-Bolshevik bogeymen knocking at the door) and the Battle of Britain (assuming they won the Battle of France). It would also probably butterfly Mussolini's slapstick military campaigns in the Balkans that Hitler had to bail him out of. Il Duce was a gigantic egomaniac but even he probably would have realized that right then wasn't the time if the Soviets were invading. This all means that the Luftwaffe in particular is in way better shape in all areas, the Fallschirmjagers haven't been gutted on Crete (along with the Luftwaffe transport units) and still have Hitler's confidence, and the Nazis didn't lose a whole army group in Africa.
Overall I think many in this thread give the Soviets too much credit.