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.
{
    LOCK(cs_s);
    assert();
    std::vector<std::shared_ptr<CWallet>>::const_iterator i = std::find(vps.begin(), vps.end(), );
    if (i != vps.end()) return false;
    vps.push_back();
    ->ConnectScriptPubKeyManNotifiers();
    ->NotifyCanGetAddressesChanged();
    return true;
}
bool RemoveWallet(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>& , std::optional<bool> load_on_start, std::vector<bilingual_str>& warnings)
{
    assert();
    interfaces::Chain& chain = ->chain();
    std::string name = ->GetName();
    
    ->m_chain_notifications_handler.reset();
    LOCK(cs_s);
    std::vector<std::shared_ptr<CWallet>>::iterator i = std::find(vps.begin(), vps.end(), );
    if (i == vps.end()) return false;
    vps.erase(i);
    
    UpdateWalletSetting(chain, name, load_on_start, warnings);
    return true;
}
bool RemoveWallet(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>& , std::optional<bool> load_on_start)