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.
HelpExampleCli("walletpassphrasechange", "\"old one\" \"new one\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("walletpassphrasechange", "\"old one\", \"new one\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    if (!pwallet->IsCrypted()) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_WRONG_ENC_STATE, "Error: running with an unencrypted wallet, but walletpassphrasechange was called.");
    }
    
    
    SecureString strOldWalletPass;
    strOldWalletPass.reserve(100);
    strOldWalletPass = request.params[0].get_str().c_str();
    SecureString strNewWalletPass;
    strNewWalletPass.reserve(100);
    strNewWalletPass = request.params[1].get_str().c_str();
    if (strOldWalletPass.empty() || strNewWalletPass.empty()) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "passphrase can not be empty");
    }
    if (!pwallet->ChangeWalletPassphrase(strOldWalletPass, strNewWalletPass)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_PASSPHRASE_INCORRECT, "Error: The wallet passphrase entered was incorrect.");
    }
    return NullUniValue;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan walletlock()