Can you look into the interventions being used, and make sure they are the right interventions for her, being used the right way/ frequently enough, and have a good evidence base?
Our district is big on using all sorts of reading interventions that range from unproven to proven useless, saving the one proven Orton-Gillingham-based intervention for "extreme cases" (and only after they've tried and failed with everything else). The result is a lot of kids put in a lot of hours doing work they are told will fix the problem but doesn't. The child feels even more stupid and useless than ever, and tends to absorb the message that this failure is their fault. It's really, really hard on the kids.
What was life-changing for DD was starting a proper O-G program (we used All about Reading/ All about Spelling, at home). Using a properly-structured program meant that every day when she had to read, she had already been explicitly taught everything she needed to know to read what was in front of her. She was never given a task she hadn't yet been taught how to handle.
That was massive. She stopped being "stupid" - and frustrated and angry - and started to be able to realize she was competent. Eventually, even confident. Able to say, "I am totally capable of learning, as long as you teach me the way I need to learn."
Which isn't to say it wasn't a long and excruciating process. "Gifted" plus "explicit and repetitive teaching" is not a fun combo. But while she always resisted the core lessons, more and more she would ask if she could read more to me from the books that come with the program. What a huge change from the knock-down-drag-'em-out battles we used to have about her nightly school reading!
So all that to say, our experience is that remediation (any kind) isn't fun. Really, really not fun. But if you've got the right kind of remediation happening, the actual function being remediated - like reading - should be getting easier and more appealing, even if the repetitive remediation itself is not.
