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.
RPCResult::Type::STR, "address", "The address"
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("getrawchangeaddress", "")
            + HelpExampleRpc("getrawchangeaddress", "")
                },
        [&](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->CanGetAddresses(true)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "Error: This wallet has no available keys");
    }
    OutputType output_type = pwallet->m_default_change_type.value_or(pwallet->m_default_address_type);
    if (!request.params[0].isNull()) {
        if (!ParseOutputType(request.params[0].get_str(), output_type)) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, strprintf("Unknown address type '%s'", request.params[0].get_str()));
        }
    }
    CTxDestination dest;
    std::string error;
    if (!pwallet->GetNewChangeDestination(output_type, dest, error)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_KEYPOOL_RAN_OUT, error);
    }
    return EncodeDestination(dest);
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan setlabel()