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.
UniValue transactions(UniValue::VARR);
            if (it != mapTally.end())
            {
                for (const uint256& _item : (*it).second.txids)
                {
                    transactions.push_back(_item.GetHex());
                }
            }
            obj.pushKV("txids", transactions);
            ret.push_back(obj);
        }
    }
    if (by_label)
    {
        for (const auto& entry : label_tally)
        {
            CAmount nAmount = entry.second.nAmount;
            int nConf = entry.second.nConf;
            UniValue obj(UniValue::VOBJ);
            if (entry.second.fIsWatchonly)
                obj.pushKV("involvesWatchonly", true);
            obj.pushKV("amount",        ValueFromAmount(nAmount));
            obj.pushKV("confirmations", (nConf == std::numeric_limits<int>::max() ? 0 : nConf));
            obj.pushKV("label",         entry.first);
            ret.push_back(obj);
        }
    }
    return ret;
}
static RPCHelpMan listreceivedbyaddress()