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.
RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::NONE, "", ""},
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("keypoolrefill", "")
            + HelpExampleRpc("keypoolrefill", "")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    if (pwallet->IsLegacy() && pwallet->IsWalletFlagSet(WALLET_FLAG_DISABLE_PRIVATE_KEYS)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "Error: Private keys are disabled for this wallet");
    }
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    
    unsigned int kpSize = 0;
    if (!request.params[0].isNull()) {
        if (request.params[0].get_int() < 0)
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Invalid parameter, expected valid size.");
        kpSize = (unsigned int)request.params[0].get_int();
    }
    EnsureWalletIsUnlocked(*pwallet);
    pwallet->TopUpKeyPool(kpSize);
    if (pwallet->GetKeyPoolSize() < kpSize) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "Error refreshing keypool.");
    }
    return NullUniValue;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan walletpassphrase()