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.
std::string strMessage = request.params[1].get_str();
    CTxDestination dest = DecodeDestination(strAddress);
    if (!IsValidDestination(dest)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, "Invalid address");
    }
    const PKHash* pkhash = std::get_if<PKHash>(&dest);
    if (!pkhash) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_TYPE_ERROR, "Address does not refer to key");
    }
    std::string signature;
    SigningResult err = pwallet->SignMessage(strMessage, *pkhash, signature);
    if (err == SigningResult::SIGNING_FAILED) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, SigningResultString(err));
    } else if (err != SigningResult::OK){
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, SigningResultString(err));
    }
    return signature;
},
    };
}
static CAmount GetReceived(const CWallet& wallet, const UniValue& params, bool by_label) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(wallet.cs_wallet)
{
    std::set<CTxDestination> address_set;
    if (by_label) {
        
        std::string label = LabelFromValue(params[0]);
        address_set = wallet.GetLabelAddresses(label);
    } else {
        
        CTxDestination dest = DecodeDestination(params[0].get_str());