It is grammatically correct* but stylistically dreadful. “Subsequent to” is an unnatural Latinate construction consisting of two words with four syllables in place of a common two-syllable English word.

The English word is after.

Likewise “prior to”, for which the English is “after”.

*The present tense is often used to indicate the future in this way, especially in recipes or instructions.

It is grammatically correct* but stylistically dreadful. “Subsequent to” is an unnatural Latinate construction consisting of two words with four syllables in place of a common two-syllable English word.

The English word is after.

And if anyone tries to persuade you otherwise, just sing this to them:

Subsequent to your departure, and its lachrymatory consequences,
Subsequent to your departure, obviating all pretences…
…subsequent to your definitive departure.

Likewise “prior to”, for which the English is “before”.

*The present tense is often used to indicate the future in this way, especially in recipes or instructions.