One of the joys of physics is that you can often reframe the problem. In your problem, you have a moving cube and a person standing still. Thus you are thinking in the frame of the person (the person is motionless in the person's own frame). But you can also think of it in the frame of the cube. In that viewpoint, the cube is still, and the person is moving towards it at a walking pace. (the cube is motionless in the cube's own frame). Other than the minor detail of whether the persons legs are moving or if the cube is ominously floating forward, the two situations are identical, and your question doesn't concern itself with that particular detail. So let's reframe!
So thus, if you are interested in what happens in the case of that collision, you can instead ask what would happen if you walked into a steel wall. Go ahead. Try it. See what happens.
Okay, fine. Don't do it. While it wont kill you, it may hurt. What will actually happen is that your body will deform on impact, exactly as it would if you walked into a wall. The parts of our body which are most sensitive (such as the brain) are well protected by layers of flesh and bone which were evolved over millions of years to provide the critical milliseconds of protection to keep them safe.
There are times where reframing the problem will not be so helpful. Consider the same problem, but now the person is standing against a wall. You can still reframe the problem in the perspective of the cube, but now you have to deal with the pesky question of the inertia of the wall. Once the cube has contacted the person, moving them back, and then they make contact with the wall, we need to start worrying about how hard it is to accelerate the wall. Depending on stiffness, we might argue that is exactly as difficult as changing the rotation speed of the planet -- a big and hard to calculate number. Instead, we find it is easier to calculate in the wall's frame of reference, letting the cube and the person move, and then handwave away all the unnecessary nuances of how the wall moves -- simply declare that it doesn't move at all.
In principle, even here there is movement. Walls will move and deflect, often far more than you think they do. Few things actually happen instantaneously in the world of physics, although we'll often approximate them as such.
This second problem has very real real-world implications. Consider industrial robots. Industrial robots are made of very stiff steel, and have strong motors controlled by algorithms that have one goal: to move from point A to point B. If a person gets in the way, its like your cube problem. The person will get smacked by the robot, and it will hurt.
One solution is to install security barricades to keep people out of the way. This has been shown to have tremendously dangerous consequences, for now the problem is more like my second example with a cube, person, and a wall. On more than one occasion, robots have pinned people against the security barricades, crushing them not just with the power of their motors, but with the power of their motors and a decidedly well-anchored and immobile steel barricade. There's a very good reason why modern factories implement technologies like light-barriers which notify the algorithms that a human has gotten near the robot so that the algorithm can shut down the robot before something bad happens.