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 (!pwallet->Unlock(strWalletPass)) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_PASSPHRASE_INCORRECT, "Error: The wallet passphrase entered was incorrect.");
        }
        pwallet->TopUpKeyPool();
        pwallet->nRelockTime = GetTime() + nSleepTime;
        relock_time = pwallet->nRelockTime;
    }
    
    
    
    
    AssertLockNotHeld(wallet->cs_wallet);
    
    
    
    std::weak_ptr<CWallet> weak_wallet = wallet;
    pwallet->chain().rpcRunLater(strprintf("lockwallet(%s)", pwallet->GetName()), [weak_wallet, relock_time] {
        if (auto shared_wallet = weak_wallet.lock()) {
            LOCK(shared_wallet->cs_wallet);
            
            if (shared_wallet->nRelockTime != relock_time) return;
            shared_wallet->Lock();
            shared_wallet->nRelockTime = 0;
        }
    }, nSleepTime);
    return NullUniValue;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan walletpassphrasechange()