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 (std::get_if<CNoDestination>(&dest))
        return false;
    m_address_book[dest].destdata.insert(std::make_pair(key, value));
    return batch.WriteDestData(EncodeDestination(dest), key, value);
}
bool CWallet::EraseDestData(WalletBatch& batch, const CTxDestination &dest, const std::string &key)
{
    if (!m_address_book[dest].destdata.erase(key))
        return false;
    return batch.EraseDestData(EncodeDestination(dest), key);
}
void CWallet::LoadDestData(const CTxDestination &dest, const std::string &key, const std::string &value)
{
    m_address_book[dest].destdata.insert(std::make_pair(key, value));
}
bool CWallet::GetDestData(const CTxDestination &dest, const std::string &key, std::string *value) const