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.
{
    
    const CScript& scriptPubKey = txout.scriptPubKey;
    SignatureData sigdata;
    std::unique_ptr<SigningProvider> provider = GetSolvingProvider(scriptPubKey);
    if (!provider) {
        
        return false;
    }
    if (!ProduceSignature(*provider, use_max_sig ? DUMMY_MAXIMUM_SIGNATURE_CREATOR : DUMMY_SIGNATURE_CREATOR, scriptPubKey, sigdata)) {
        return false;
    }
    UpdateInput(tx_in, sigdata);
    return true;
}
bool CWallet::DummySignTx(CMutableTransaction &txNew, const std::vector<CTxOut> &txouts, bool use_max_sig) const
{
    
    int nIn = 0;
    for (const auto& txout : txouts)
    {
        if (!DummySignInput(txNew.vin[nIn], txout, use_max_sig)) {
            return false;
        }
        nIn++;
    }
    return true;
}
bool CWallet::ImportScripts(const std::set<CScript> scripts, int64_t timestamp)