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.
{
    WalletBatch batch(GetDatabase());
    if (!batch.WriteActiveScriptPubKeyMan(static_cast<uint8_t>(type), id, internal)) {
        throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": writing active ScriptPubKeyMan id failed");
    }
    LoadActiveScriptPubKeyMan(id, type, internal);
}
void CWallet::LoadActiveScriptPubKeyMan(uint256 id, OutputType type, bool internal)
{
    WalletLogPrintf("Setting spkMan to active: id = %s, type = %d, internal = %d\n", id.ToString(), static_cast<int>(type), static_cast<int>(internal));
    auto& spk_mans = internal ? m_internal_spk_managers : m_external_spk_managers;
    auto spk_man = m_spk_managers.at(id).get();
    spk_man->SetInternal(internal);
    spk_mans[type] = spk_man;
    NotifyCanGetAddressesChanged();
}
bool CWallet::IsLegacy() const