It sounds to me like there are really two separate questions here, and it's not obvious which one is being asked. The first question is, why don't all stars have the same mass, if they all "turn on" when the core reaches similar temperatures? The answer to that is, the mass that a star will end up having gets determined long before the core reaches fusion temperature, so there is no direct connection between the conditions when fusion starts, and the mass of the star.
The second question is, given that stars can have different masses, should we still expect them to be the same size (i.e., same radius) if the temperature of the core is similar? The answer to that is, no-- the mass of the star should directly affect its size, even if the core temperatures are similar. That's because gravity heats the star as it contracts, but a higher mass star has a stronger gravity when it has the same size as a lower mass star, so it also heats more (when it's at the same size), so it reaches fusion temperatures when it is still much larger. Lower mass stars must gravitationally contract much more to reach fusion temperatures, and that is why they are smaller. (Ironically, by the time they contract enough to fuse, their densities and gravities end up larger than the high-mass stars. When people forget that, they end up saying all kinds of crazy things like high-mass stars are more luminous because their cores are denser or have stronger gravity or pressure, all of which is not true about the cores of high-mass stars.)