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.
return result;
        }
    };
}
#endif 
RPCHelpMan abortrescan();
RPCHelpMan dumpprivkey();
RPCHelpMan importprivkey();
RPCHelpMan importaddress();
RPCHelpMan importpubkey();
RPCHelpMan dumpwallet();
RPCHelpMan importwallet();
RPCHelpMan importprunedfunds();
RPCHelpMan removeprunedfunds();
RPCHelpMan importmulti();
RPCHelpMan importdescriptors();
RPCHelpMan listdescriptors();
Span<const CRPCCommand> GetWalletRPCCommands()
{
static const CRPCCommand commands[] =
{ 
  
    { "rawtransactions",    &fundrawtransaction,             },
    { "wallet",             &abandontransaction,             },
    { "wallet",             &abortrescan,                    },
    { "wallet",             &addmultisigaddress,             },
    { "wallet",             &backupwallet,                   },
    { "wallet",             &bumpfee,                        },
    { "wallet",             &psbtbumpfee,                    },
    { "wallet",             &createwallet,                   },