Usually, it's translated as "What do you me to do for you?" but this could simply be translational inertia, reflecting either the grammatically smooth Textus Receptus Τί θέλετε ποιῆσαί με ὑμῖν; or the somewhat rougher Hort's Τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν; (I would prefer a ἵνα, though).
Turner, JTS 28 (1927): 357, seems to think the text is corrupt:
So does Higgins, Exp Times 52 (1941): 317-318, who proposes an emendation.The extraordinary reading of אc B Ψ in x 36 τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν; is relegated to the margin of W-H, and must presumably be a conflation between two readings ποιήσω and με ποιῆσαι.
Metzger et al. (1994:91), however, keep the pronoun με as the reading that explains the emergence of the others. But the harder reading can be too hard, and I can't figure out for the life of me what that pronoun is supposed to be doing grammatically or syntactically in the text. Neither verb θέλετε nor ποιήσω makes any sense to me with an accusative first-person pronoun object.
I'm not asking for a resolution of the text critical issue, just an understanding of the attested text Τί θέλετέ με ποιήσω ὑμῖν; Any ideas?
P.S. Mike Aubrey has some comments about this verse in his post, Pronominal Clitics Attaching to Verbs with Focal Constituents.