Yes and no.
There's a difference in definition with good and great when talking about art, which can get lost because "great" is often used to mean "good".
I think that influential is one of the defining characteristics for being "great", alongside timelessness. It's really hard to determine if a contemporary artist or album is great, because you can't see much of the impact they've had on other artists and the general public. Stuff like Adele, Dream Theater, Alice in Chains, Eminem, Meshuggah, Lorde, Skrillex, and Taylor Swift seem like the obvious greats to us now, but when they first came out it would've been hard to gauge their impact and lasting power.
Being influential has no impact on whether it's good or not. Whether something is good or not is totally subjective, and everyone's definition of what's good is different.
You can also acknowledge that something is great without necessarily thinking it's good. Take me for example, I absolutely hated having to sit through Slayer's Reign in Blood and Miles Davis's Bitches Brew, but I have no qualms with admitting that those two albums are great. A lot of critics thought that rock and jazz in general wouldn't last because they didn't like it, but boy were they wrong.