Sure…I don’t think the doctrine of disciplinary infalliblity intends to suggest that the law is perfect as is. The world keeps changing, and as such, general discipline must often change so as to continue to be helpful to the faithful.
One may licitly manifest their opinion for the good of the Church according to canon law and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, but they must do so charitably. At times they may be obliged to do so.
According to Lumen Gentium, no. 37:
By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.
If over time, the temporal circumstances have changed such that the disciplinary norm in question is no longer deemed prudent, then it is certainly licit to manifest that opinion in an attempt to have our lawmakers consider changing the norm so that it is better or continues, over time, to serve the common good of the faithful.
I don’t know of any examples where Jimmy Akin has behaved so as to have fallen under the condemnation of Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei. Saying a law is no longer prudent is not quite the same as charging that obedience to approved ecclesial norms are “dangerous” or “harmful” to the faith.