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.
CoinEligibilityFilter(int conf_mine, int conf_theirs, uint64_t max_ancestors, uint64_t max_descendants) : conf_mine(conf_mine), conf_theirs(conf_theirs), max_ancestors(max_ancestors), max_descendants(max_descendants) {}
    CoinEligibilityFilter(int conf_mine, int conf_theirs, uint64_t max_ancestors, uint64_t max_descendants, bool include_partial) : conf_mine(conf_mine), conf_theirs(conf_theirs), max_ancestors(max_ancestors), max_descendants(max_descendants), m_include_partial_groups(include_partial) {}
};
struct OutputGroup
{
    
    std::vector<CInputCoin> m_outputs;
    /** Whether the UTXOs were sent by the wallet to itself. This is relevant because we may want at
     * least a certain number of confirmations on UTXOs received from outside wallets while trusting
     * our own UTXOs more. */
    bool m_from_me{true};
    
    CAmount m_value{0};