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 (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    std::string label = LabelFromValue(request.params[0]);
    
    UniValue ret(UniValue::VOBJ);
    std::set<std::string> addresses;
    for (const std::pair<const CTxDestination, CAddressBookData>& item : pwallet->m_address_book) {
        if (item.second.IsChange()) continue;
        if (item.second.GetLabel() == label) {
            std::string address = EncodeDestination(item.first);
            
            
            
            bool unique = addresses.emplace(address).second;
            CHECK_NONFATAL(unique);
            
            
            
            
            ret.__pushKV(address, AddressBookDataToJSON(item.second, false));
        }
    }
    if (ret.empty()) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_INVALID_LABEL_NAME, std::string("No addresses with label " + label));
    }
    return ret;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan listlabels()