woohoo921
I realize that this question is discussed at nauseum, but I also did not like the use of "it" referring to the subject in a noun phrase. However, it looks like because the "it" is in a comma -ing mod, that this is acceptable.
The point of language in general is to enable its users to express, without vagueness or ambiguity,
as many ideas as possible. You'll find that this principle underlies every significant grammar rule.
Superficially, this idea may seem to conflict with the existence of grammatical constructions with heavy constraints on their use—e.g., "..., which..." modifiers, which are only allowed to modify a noun that's in front of the comma.
With a bit of additional thought about the function/use of each such construction, though, you should be able to understand the point of its highly circumscribed 'job description' in terms of eradicating ambiguity.
For instance, the strict limitation on "..., which..." modifiers—limiting them to describing a noun—is valuable because it precludes such modifiers from being able to modify the entire preceding clause, thus eradicating a whole class of potential ambiguities.
The relevance of the above idea in this case is that,
if you've invented a 'rule of thumb' whose only effect is to make certain phrasings impossible, that 'rule' is extremely unlikely to be valid.If we were to make a rule out of your statement here about "not liking" certain types of nouns as pronoun referents, that rule would be precisely this sort of negative value-add to the language. Sure enough, there's no such rule.