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{"walletlock",
                "\nRemoves the wallet encryption key from memory, locking the wallet.\n"
                "After calling this method, you will need to call walletpassphrase again\n"
                "before being able to call any methods which require the wallet to be unlocked.\n",
                {},
                RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::NONE, "", ""},
                RPCExamples{
            "\nSet the passphrase for 2 minutes to perform a transaction\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletpassphrase", "\"my pass phrase\" 120") +
            "\nPerform a send (requires passphrase set)\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 1.0") +
            "\nClear the passphrase since we are done before 2 minutes is up\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletlock", "") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"
            + HelpExampleRpc("walletlock", "")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);