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 -changetype is specified, always use that change type.
    if (change_type) {
        return *change_type;
    }
     if m_default_address_type is legacy, use legacy address as change (even
     if some of the outputs are P2WPKH or P2WSH).
    if (m_default_address_type == OutputType::LEGACY) {
        return OutputType::LEGACY;
    }
     if any destination is P2WPKH or P2WSH, use P2WPKH for the change
     output.
    for (const auto& recipient : vecSend) {
         Che
        int witnessversion = 0;
        std::vector<unsigned char> witnessprogram;
        if (recipient.scriptPubKey.IsWitnessProgram(witnessversion, witnessprogram)) {
            return OutputType::BECH32;
        }
    }
     else use m_default_address_type for change
    return m_default_address_type;
}
bool CWallet::CreateTransactionInternal(