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.
if (!request.params[3].isNull() && !request.params[3].get_str().empty())
        mapValue["to"] = request.params[3].get_str();
    bool fSubtractFeeFromAmount = false;
    if (!request.params[4].isNull()) {
        fSubtractFeeFromAmount = request.params[4].get_bool();
    }
    CCoinControl coin_control;
    if (!request.params[5].isNull()) {
        coin_control.m_signal_bip125_rbf = request.params[5].get_bool();
    }
    coin_control.m_avoid_address_reuse = GetAvoidReuseFlag(*pwallet, request.params[8]);
    
    coin_control.m_avoid_partial_spends |= coin_control.m_avoid_address_reuse;
    SetFeeEstimateMode(*pwallet, coin_control,  request.params[6],  request.params[7],  request.params[9],  false);
    EnsureWalletIsUnlocked(*pwallet);
    UniValue address_amounts(UniValue::VOBJ);
    const std::string address = request.params[0].get_str();
    address_amounts.pushKV(address, request.params[1]);
    UniValue subtractFeeFromAmount(UniValue::VARR);
    if (fSubtractFeeFromAmount) {
        subtractFeeFromAmount.push_back(address);
    }
    std::vector<CRecipient> recipients;
    ParseRecipients(address_amounts, subtractFeeFromAmount, recipients);
    const bool verbose{request.params[10].isNull() ? false : request.params[10].get_bool()};
    return SendMoney(*pwallet, coin_control, recipients, mapValue, verbose);
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan listaddressgroupings()