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.
{
    return RPCHelpMan{
                "listunspent",
                "\nReturns array of unspent transaction outputs\n"
                "with between minconf and maxconf (inclusive) confirmations.\n"
                "Optionally filter to only include txouts paid to specified addresses.\n",
                {
                    {"minconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Default{1}, "The minimum confirmations to filter"},
                    {"maxconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Default{9999999}, "The maximum confirmations to filter"},
                    {"addresses", RPCArg::Type::ARR, RPCArg::Default{UniValue::VARR}, "The bitcoin addresses to filter",
                        {
                            {"address", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "bitcoin address"},
                        },
                    },
                    {"include_unsafe", RPCArg::Type::BOOL, RPCArg::Default{true}, "Include outputs that are not safe to spend\n"
                              "See description of \"safe\" attribute below."},
                    {"query_options", RPCArg::Type::OBJ, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "JSON with query options",
                        {