The question already has a great answer that I can't improve on. But I'm adding a compare and contrast to e.g. and i.e. since they are so often confused. I'm hoping a compare and contrast may be helpful to future readers that arrive here as I did (internet search).
e.g. is Latin for exempi gratia, and it's used to mean "for example." If I state that "we accept all major credit cards; e.g., Visa and MasterCard," that means that we accept Visa and MasterCard, as well as other, un-named credit cards that would also be considered "major." (In this case, the phrasing is ambiguous since customers won't know what other credit cards are considered "major.")
i.e. is Latin for id est, and it's used to mean "that is." And "that is" is used to indicate a rephrasing. If I state, "We accept all major credit cards; i.e., Visa and MasterCard," that indicates that that I'm defining "all major credits cards" as just Visa and MasterCard, and those are the only two that I accept.
viz. is Latin for videlicet, and it means "namely." It is really a sub-type of i.e. where you are rephrasing something, but the manner of rephrasing is to list items by name; "We accept all major credit cards; viz., Visa and MasterCard."
The difference between e.g. and viz. is not particularly subtle, but still confused. Both are rephrasing. The abbreviation e.g. is a rephrasing of any kind, while viz. is rephrasing specifically in the style of an extensional definition. (See https://www.revolvy.com/page/Extensional-and-intensional-definitions or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions.)
The original post asked "Do you think native English speakers would find it weird or inappropriate?" Unfortunately yes. It seems the vast majority of native English speakers have never bothered to crack a dictionary to look these up. I've had numerous college professors and known numerous physicians who incorrectly use "i.e." when they mean "for example." I've even seen professionally published, printed articles use i.e. when e.g. is called for. Because of that, the most current guidance I have read is to avoid the abbreviations. For example, the Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed) recommends that they be "... confined to bibliographic references, glossaries, and other scholarly apparatus."