I think P&S explain their motivation in the book, if I'm not wrong (I haven't opened it in a long time!). I think the choice is motivated from an experimental POV. Suppose you were performing an $2\to2$ scattering experiment in the CM frame at energy $2E$. Then,
$$s=4E^2, \qquad t=-4(E^2-m^2) \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2} , \qquad t=-4(E^2-m^2) \cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}.
$$
To experimentally test out our theory, we first need to do a couple of "setup" experiments. Note that $\lambda$ and $m$ are parameters in our theory which must be fixed by experiment (i.e. the theory does not by itself predict these values). To fix these, we do one experiment at some energy scale $E_0$ which will fix $\lambda(E_0)$ and $m(E_0)$. Once this is known, the theory predicts the results of all other experiments at all energy scales. Every other experiment then can be used to test out the theory.
OK, now what's the best choice for $E_0$? Well, one natural choice is to measure it at the lowest possible energy scale, which in this case is $E_0=m$ (when $E<m$ there is no particle excitation so there is nothing to scatter). So, we perform the experiment at this scale and find $\lambda(m) = \lambda_0$ and $m(m) = m_0$. The renormalization condition chosen by P&S precisely defines the renormalized coupling and mass to these experimentally measured values.
Note that there are many other useful renormalization conditions. Sometimes, it is convenient to fix $\lambda$ in the unphysical regime of scattering (say when $t>0$). This choice makes the theoretical calculations easier, but then a few extra steps have to be taken to match anything to experiment.