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 (m_internal_spk_managers.count(OutputType::LEGACY) == 0) {
        return false;
    }
    auto spk_man = dynamic_cast<LegacyScriptPubKeyMan*>(m_internal_spk_managers.at(OutputType::LEGACY));
    return spk_man != nullptr;
}
DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan* CWallet::GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan(const WalletDescriptor& desc) const
{
    for (auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
         Try to downcast to DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan then check if the descriptors match
        DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan* spk_manager = dynamic_cast<DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan*>(spk_man_pair.second.get());
        if (spk_manager != nullptr && spk_manager->HasWalletDescriptor(desc)) {
            return spk_manager;
        }
    }
    return nullptr;
}
ScriptPubKeyMan* CWallet::AddWalletDescriptor(WalletDescriptor& desc, const FlatSigningProvider& signing_provider, const std::string& label, bool internal)
{
    if (!IsWalletFlagSet(WALLET_FLAG_DESCRIPTORS)) {
        WalletLogPrintf("Cannot add WalletDescriptor to a non-descriptor \n");