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.
pwallet->SetAddressBook(dest, label, "send");
    
    std::unique_ptr<Descriptor> descriptor = InferDescriptor(GetScriptForDestination(dest), spk_man);
    UniValue result(UniValue::VOBJ);
    result.pushKV("address", EncodeDestination(dest));
    result.pushKV("redeemScript", HexStr(inner));
    result.pushKV("descriptor", descriptor->ToString());
    return result;
},
    };
}
struct tallyitem
{
    CAmount nAmount{0};
    int nConf{std::numeric_limits<int>::max()};
    std::vector<uint256> txids;
    bool fIsWatchonly{false};
    tallyitem()
    {
    }
};
static UniValue ListReceived(const CWallet& wallet, const UniValue& params, bool by_label) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(wallet.cs_wallet)
{
    
    int nMinDepth = 1;
    if (!params[0].isNull())
        nMinDepth = params[0].get_int();
    
    bool fIncludeEmpty = false;
    if (!params[1].isNull())