Talk to your supervisor about your review. Fortunately, you failed to actually submit it, so it's just a matter for discussion between the two of you. Consider yourself lucky.
There are two completely separate issues that have become muddled in the question and in the comments: submission of "articles" (also called "manuscripts" or "papers") on one hand, and submission of "reviews" on the other hand. Just to be clear, an article is original work intended for publication under the OP's name (evidently with the supervisor as corresponding author and possibly with other coauthors). Meanwhile, a review like the OP describes in the question will not be published; it is a pre-publication assessment of another person's article, that is communicated via the journal's editor directly to that other person. This is also called "refereeing" or "peer review".
Just to confuse things a little, it's also possible to publish a "review" — particularly in journals (e.g., Mathematical Reviews) that specialize in such things. These are reviews of works (books, papers, etc.) that are already public and — where relevant — have already gone through peer review. The OP mentions that the other reviewer "reject[ed] the manuscript", which means that this isn't the type of review under consideration. So the question is really asking about refereeing / peer review.
I'm not too surprised that the supervisor asks his students to submit articles (articles that he presumably has some familiarity with and generally approved of) using his account, but I am in utter disbelief that he might have suggested that students independently write and submit a review of another article using his account without his input. Those are two wildly different actions. The first is not entirely proper but is not unheard of, while the second is enormously unethical and inappropriate for so many reasons I can't list them. You and your professor could get a minor slap on the wrist for the first, but you could both get into serious trouble for actually doing the second — ranging from public shaming that could harm your professional trajectory, to formal punishment and loss of funding, to outright firing, possible loss of government funding for your university, and even legal repercussions if the journal or the authors whose work you were trying to review chose to make an issue of it. Misrepresentations like these are fraud and may even cross the line into crimes, with real harm being done to the journal and the authors whose work you reviewed.
For these reasons, I suspect that your supervisor did not actually intend for you to do this review yourself and try to upload it. I really hope you misunderstood what he told you. On the other hand, if your supervisor really did tell you that you could do this, don't. Just do your work to finish your Ph.D., and get away from him as quickly as possible so that you can establish an independent career before he drags you down with him. If you feel that you are being pressured to do something you shouldn't, talk to someone else in a position of authority at your university.
This is not an issue of cultural differences; it is an issue of basic standards in academic publishing. I've worked closely with colleagues from all around the world, and have never heard of anything remotely like this except in the context of professors who have lost their positions because of misconduct. Don't take up your supervisor's patterns of misconduct.