IMO, the greater risk is that a seed might get exposed due to cryptographic weaknesses that one set of keys uses, and this weakness would end up exposing all of your keys. For example, if a hypothetical weakness in ECDSA allowed someone to determine a bitcoin private key, and to use a bitcoin private key to determine your seed, then your PGP keys would be exposed if you are using the same seed for both your PGP key and your bitcoin keys.
That means any bit size larger than 256 bits for ECDSA won’t improve the overall security of the PGP key since a bitcoin private key is made from 256 bits of entropy, unless the PBKDF2 salt is randomized, but even then would it provide the required number of entropy bits (384-256=128) to make it equivalent to a 384 bit ECDSA key? I don’t think it will if the derivation path decides the KDF salt because it’s capped to 2^31 numbers. Then it would usually take a shorter time to attack the seed phrase if several bits of it were leaked, and then attack the salt than to directly attack a PGP private key even if the same number of bits were leaked.
That means security is capped at 256 bits of entropy and for this reason so it leads me to think it’s safer to generate entropy for larger ECDSA keys directly instead of relying on seed phrases and key stretching.
when you derive a key using KDFs (like the second part of my initial comment) or if the key was derived using a hardened path in BIP32 scheme then everything is irreversible and even if any child private keys were leaked the master key (or the seed) will never be revealed. it is simply impossible because the process which consists of mostly SHA512 hashes is not reversible, ever.
It’s probably better to use child keys with a hardened derivation path than the master key or the seed phrase because they’d still have to guess the derivation path or KDF salt that was used to derive the child key, since all of these processes are irreversible.