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{
                    RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::STR, "psbt", "The resulting raw transaction (base64-encoded string)"},
                        {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "fee", "Fee in " + CURRENCY_UNIT + " the resulting transaction pays"},
                        {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "changepos", "The position of the added change output, or -1"},
                    }
                                },
                                RPCExamples{
                            "\nCreate a transaction with no inputs\n"
                            + HelpExampleCli("walletcreatefundedpsbt", "\"[{\\\"txid\\\":\\\"myid\\\",\\\"vout\\\":0}]\" \"[{\\\"data\\\":\\\"00010203\\\"}]\"")
                                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    RPCTypeCheck(request.params, {
        UniValue::VARR,
        UniValueType(), 
        UniValue::VNUM,
        UniValue::VOBJ,
        UniValue::VBOOL
        }, true
    );
    CAmount fee;
    int change_position;
    bool rbf = pwallet->m_signal_rbf;
    const UniValue &replaceable_arg = request.params[3]["replaceable"];
    if (!replaceable_arg.isNull()) {