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.
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    return IsMine(txout.scriptPubKey);
}
isminetype CWallet::IsMine(const CTxDestination& dest) const
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    return IsMine(GetScriptForDestination(dest));
}
isminetype CWallet::IsMine(const CScript& script) const
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    isminetype result = ISMINE_NO;
    for (const auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
        result = std::max(result, spk_man_pair.second->IsMine(script));
    }
    return result;
}
CAmount CWallet::GetCredit(const CTxOut& txout, const isminefilter& filter) const
{
    if (!MoneyRange(txout.nValue))
        throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": value out of range");
    LOCK(cs_);
    return ((IsMine(txout) & filter) ? txout.nValue : 0);
}
bool CWallet::IsChange(const CTxOut& txout) const