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.
const auto it = pwallet->mapWallet.find(outpt.hash);
        if (it == pwallet->mapWallet.end()) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, unknown transaction");
        }
        const CWalletTx& trans = it->second;
        if (outpt.n >= trans.tx->vout.size()) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, vout index out of bounds");
        }
        if (pwallet->IsSpent(outpt.hash, outpt.n)) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, expected unspent output");
        }
        const bool is_locked = pwallet->IsLockedCoin(outpt.hash, outpt.n);
        if (fUnlock && !is_locked) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, expected locked output");
        }
        if (!fUnlock && is_locked) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, output already locked");
        }
        outputs.push_back(outpt);
    }
    
    for (const COutPoint& outpt : outputs) {
        if (fUnlock) pwallet->UnlockCoin(outpt);
        else pwallet->LockCoin(outpt);
    }
    return true;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan listlockunspent()