If the cited work is unable to be replicated, and you try to replicate but get different results, then you would be doing original research, and then you can base further work on your initial original study that came to a different result.
On the flip side, if you are able to replicate it, then you are doing extra work initially, but after replicating the work you've cited, the work you've done is more likely to be reproducible by someone else.
The amount of citations needed to require replication could itself be a function of how easy it is to replicate work across an entire field.
A field where there's a high rate of success in replicating work could have a higher threshold for requiring replication compared to a field where it's difficult to replicate work.
Also your mentality is exactly part of the problem: you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you and that originality is all that matters.
This could help your career by increasing the probability that the work you're citing is more likely accurate, and as a result, your work is also likely more accurate.
