Zevachim 67A

אמר לו רבי אליעזר: והרי קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום ושחטן לשם קדשים קלים יוכיחו ⁠– שכן שינה את שמם לדבר שאין בו מעילה, ומועלין בהן; אף אתה אל תתמה על העולה ⁠– אף על פי ששינה שמה לדבר שאין בו מעילה, שימעלו בה!

R' Eliezer said to him: The case of offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove that the fact that one changed the offering’s designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse is not a relevant factor. As in this case, one changed their designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse and, nevertheless, one is liable for misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering, concerning which even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, the halakha is that one would be liable for misusing it.

אמר לו רבי יהושע: לא; אם אמרת בקדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום ושחטן לשם קדשים קלים ⁠– שכן שינה את שמם לדבר שיש בו איסור והיתר; תאמר בעולה ⁠– ששינה את שמה לדבר שכולו היתר?!

R' Yehoshua said to him: No, that is no proof, as if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is that one who slaughtered them changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. Would you say the halakha is the same in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation to an item that is permitted in its entirety, i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?