I admit I can't exactly explain why, but it seems to me including the word just (which in principle is syntactically irrelevant) makes Past Perfect more acceptable than it would have been. Consider...
1a: ?I have spent the money I had earned yesterday.
2a: I have spent the money I earned yesterday.
1b: ?I do not have the money I had earned yesterday.
2b: I do not have the money I earned yesterday.
With the construction reduced to its bare essentials like that, I'd have no hesitation in saying that linguistically, #1a / #1b are at the very least "unhappy" (most native speakers wouldn't like them). And prescriptive grammarians would doubtless say the tense mismatch is "ungrammatical".
As @Andrew comments below, OP's #1 might not be a Past Perfect usage at all. It could be Simple Past to have [something] XXXXed = to cause [something] to be XXXXed (by someone else)...
We had our wedding pictures taken by a professional photographer.
To clarify the different usages, consider...
Yesterday I cut my hair. (Simple Past - I did it myself)
Yesterday I had my hair cut. (Simple Past - I got someone else to cut it)
Yesterday I looked smart because I had cut my hair. (Past Perfect)
Note that the potential "ambiguity" of OP's #1 is an artefact of the written form. In "real" language (i.e. - the spoken form), if the Simple Past sense was intended, the word had would be stressed. That stress would unambiguously identify to have as the "primary" verb, rather than just the "helper" verb used to form the Past Perfect.