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.
{
    if (m_spk_managers.count(id) > 0) {
        return m_spk_managers.at(id).get();
    }
    return nullptr;
}
std::unique_ptr<SigningProvider> CWallet::GetSolvingProvider(const CScript& script) const
{
    SignatureData sigdata;
    return GetSolvingProvider(script, sigdata);
}
std::unique_ptr<SigningProvider> CWallet::GetSolvingProvider(const CScript& script, SignatureData& sigdata) const
{
    for (const auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
        if (spk_man_pair.second->CanProvide(script, sigdata)) {
            return spk_man_pair.second->GetSolvingProvider(script);
        }
    }
    return nullptr;
}
LegacyScriptPubKeyMan* CWallet::GetLegacyScriptPubKeyMan() const