Would it be completely unreasonable to allow `fundrawtransaction` to use unsafe outputs?

I understand this means the resulting transaction may be invalidated whenever the unsafe output I'm relying one disappears (e.g. because the transaction that produced it was RBF-ed) but in my case that's ok, I'll react to that and re-publish the tree of child transactions accordingly.

But let me know if you think that's too much of a footgun for users, in that case I'll architect my solution differently.
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"lockunspent",
                "\nUpdates list of temporarily unspendable outputs.\n"
                "Temporarily lock (unlock=false) or unlock (unlock=true) specified transaction outputs.\n"
                "If no transaction outputs are specified when unlocking then all current locked transaction outputs are unlocked.\n"
                "A locked transaction output will not be chosen by automatic coin selection, when spending bitcoins.\n"
                "Manually selected coins are automatically unlocked.\n"
                "Locks are stored in memory only. Nodes start with zero locked outputs, and the locked output list\n"
                "is always cleared (by virtue of process exit) when a node stops or fails.\n"
                "Also see the listunspent call\n",
                {