It’s okay to say, “this is a passage that is more fruitful when used for this kind of apologetic argument than for that kind of argument,” but you can’t declare that something isn’t a type when it’s a well-known one.
Heck, I don’t think there’s any mechanism to ever say something isn’t a type. It’d be like outlawing a specific analogy or metaphor. I suppose one might declare it theologically heretical, but that doesn’t happen often at all. A given commentator’s explanation of why one sees it as a type can be very rich and beautiful or very pathetically stupid, but that doesn’t make the type exist more or less. It just makes it more or less popular, or more or less powerful as a tool for spiritual understanding.
Nor do types have to be flattering in any way. Rahab has been called a type of the Church, and indeed all prostitutes in general have been called a type of the Church, because the Church will take anybody, just like prostitutes. You can argue about the accuracy of this in regards to Rahab (if she just kept a perfectly respectable inn), or you can argue whether prostitutes indeed take anybody, or you can argue whether this causes too much snickering or is too close to blasphemous to be useful as a spiritual tool.
I certainly wouldn’t suggest you use it as an apologetics or conversion tool, unless you really needed to make somebody laugh, and maybe not even then! You don’t want to scandalize people, and the sort of person who already thinks of the Church as the Scarlet Woman would be very easy to scandalize!
But you can’t say that “Rahab and prostitutes are not really types of the Church, because I personally find it weird to make an analogy between prostitutes and the Body of Christ, Christ’s virgin spotless Bride.” You’d be historically wrong, and you’d have a lot of saints disagreeing with you. Plus you’d be throwing away a good chunk of the Church’s biblical and mystical literature, since type and antitype are things that Church teachers have chewed over continuously, pretty much since the time of the Apostles.
(Actually, there was a school of thought that the wilder and weirder the comparison, the more likely the students would remember the theological point behind the type and antitype. It’s the same reason that people were taught to use bizarre imagery for memorization aids, and that medieval manuscripts have extremely strange drawings as place markers in the margins.)