Are there any risks with the PDA account generate with the hash function?

I currently have a PDA account with the following structure:

#[derive(AnchorSerialize, AnchorDeserialize)]pub struct NewFoo {    pub foo_id: String,}#[derive(Accounts)]#[instruction(new_foo: NewFoo)]pub struct CreateFoo<'info> {    #[account(      init,      space = 8 + Foo::INIT_SPACE,      payer = sender,      seeds = [        FOO_SEED.as_bytes(),        new_foo.foo_id.as_bytes(),      ],      bump,    )]    pub foo: Account<'info, Foo>,

With this setup, the compiled IDL structure of the PDA account looks like this:

  {"name": "foo","writable": true,"pda": {"seeds": [        {"kind": "const","value": [            83,            116,            97,            116,            101,            109,            101,            110,            116          ]        },        {"kind": "arg","path": "new_foo.foo_id"        }      ]    }  }

However, I modified the CreateFoo structure to use a hash function to generate one of the seeds. The updated structure is as follows:

use anchor_lang::{prelude::*, solana_program::hash::hash};#[derive(Accounts)]#[instruction(new_foo: NewFoo)]pub struct CreateFoo<'info> {    #[account(      init,      space = 8 + Foo::INIT_SPACE,      payer = sender,      seeds = [        FOO_SEED.as_bytes(),&hash(&new_foo.foo_id.as_bytes()).to_bytes()[..], // changed this line      ],      bump,    )]    pub foo: Account<'info, Foo>,

After this change, I noticed that the compiled IDL structure no longer represents a PDA account. Instead, it appears as a regular account:

{"name": "foo","writable": true,}

My questions are:

1. Is it correct for a PDA account generated using a hash function to compile like this? Are there any risks with this approach?
2. Can a hash function be used to generate a seed for a PDA account? If yes, is this a common practice?

I appreciate any insights or guidance you can provide on this. Thank you in advance for your help and time!