Depends on the unisex toilet, for me.
If it's taking a typical single sex one, which in many establishments tend to be put out of the way in left over corner spaces that makes it difficult to get help if there is an issue, the layout means there are areas more secluded, and - particularly if it's been switched from single sex to mixed sex, there is an expectation of it being single sex that can make people feel more vulnerable when it's not.
If someone makes a conscious effort in how it's set up, knowing the increase in risk and actively mitigating it, ensuring it's opens onto a main area where it's easy to get help, ensure all stalls are self contained with sinks and such within them and large enough for mobility devices or pushchairs to reduce feeling and being exposed, and it's clearly set out to ensure there aren't secluded areas in the area, then actual and perceived threats can be lowered and so feeling less vulnerable.
Most of the ones I've seen the former, even in newly built public spaces which I find can be much worse for the 'we'll shove the loos in this random janky corner, down a weird corridor away from everything' meaning a high risk if there is any issues that it'll take longer to get help compared to adjusting old buildings, which have much more reason for less safe toilets on being limited on space to expand or create self-contained stalls to but far more often, but the public toilets are on the main routes and generally don't have the weird internal layouts trying to maximise space so I'm far less likely to have the feeling that if something were to happen, I could be without help for a long time. It's very frustrating for me how many new buildings make toilets an afterthought, and as such make them much riskier -- and if they then want to throw mixed sex on top of that, that just raises the risks.