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.
{
    CAmount nCredit = 0;
    for (const CTxOut& txout : tx.vout)
    {
        nCredit += GetCredit(txout, filter);
        if (!MoneyRange(nCredit))
            throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": value out of range");
    }
    return nCredit;
}
CAmount CWallet::GetChange(const CTransaction& tx) const
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    CAmount nChange = 0;
    for (const CTxOut& txout : tx.vout)
    {
        nChange += GetChange(txout);
        if (!MoneyRange(nChange))
            throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": value out of range");
    }
    return nChange;
}
bool CWallet::IsHDEnabled() const