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.
{
    auto spk_man = GetLegacyScriptPubKeyMan();
    if (!spk_man) {
        return false;
    }
    LOCK(spk_man->cs_KeyStore);
    return spk_man->ImportScripts(scripts, timestamp);
}
bool CWallet::ImportPrivKeys(const std::map<CKeyID, CKey>& privkey_map, const int64_t timestamp)
{
    auto spk_man = GetLegacyScriptPubKeyMan();
    if (!spk_man) {
        return false;
    }
    LOCK(spk_man->cs_KeyStore);
    return spk_man->ImportPrivKeys(privkey_map, timestamp);
}
bool CWallet::ImportPubKeys(const std::vector<CKeyID>& ordered_pubkeys, const std::map<CKeyID, CPubKey>& pubkey_map, const std::map<CKeyID, std::pair<CPubKey, KeyOriginInfo>>& key_origins, const bool add_keypool, const bool internal, const int64_t timestamp)
{
    auto spk_man = GetLegacyScriptPubKeyMan();
    if (!spk_man) {
        return false;
    }
    LOCK(spk_man->cs_KeyStore);
    return spk_man->ImportPubKeys(ordered_pubkeys, pubkey_map, key_origins, add_keypool, internal, timestamp);
}
bool CWallet::ImportScriptPubKeys(const std::string& label, const std::set<CScript>& script_pub_keys, const bool have_solving_data, const bool apply_label, const int64_t timestamp)