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.
for (auto spk_man : Instance->GetActiveScriptPubKeyMans()) {
            if (spk_man->HavePrivateKeys()) {
                warnings.push_back(strprintf(_("Warning: Private keys detected in  {%s} with disabled private keys"), File));
                break;
            }
        }
    }
    if (!gArgs.GetArg("-addresstype", "").empty()) {
        if (!ParseOutputType(gArgs.GetArg("-addresstype", ""), Instance->m_default_address_type)) {
            error = strprintf(_("Unknown address type '%s'"), gArgs.GetArg("-addresstype", ""));
            return nullptr;
        }
    }
    if (!gArgs.GetArg("-changetype", "").empty()) {
        OutputType out_type;
        if (!ParseOutputType(gArgs.GetArg("-changetype", ""), out_type)) {
            error = strprintf(_("Unknown change type '%s'"), gArgs.GetArg("-changetype", ""));
            return nullptr;
        }
        Instance->m_default_change_type = out_type;
    }
    if (gArgs.IsArgSet("-mintxfee")) {
        CAmount n = 0;
        if (!ParseMoney(gArgs.GetArg("-mintxfee", ""), n) || 0 == n) {
            error = AmountErrMsg("mintxfee", gArgs.GetArg("-mintxfee", ""));
            return nullptr;
        }
        if (n > HIGH_TX_FEE_PER_KB) {
            warnings.push_back(AmountHighWarn("-mintxfee") + Untranslated(" ") +
                               _("This is the minimum transaction fee you pay on every transaction."));