What is wrong with it is that it is not idiomatic, as you note. Writing idiomatically is the important thing here.
It really does not matter whether you can explain or justify an idiomatic expression grammatically. In fact, grammarians can really tie themselves in knots sometimes trying to fit some idiomatic expressions into their grammatical systems. Get down among the grammar weeds and you with find a thicket of tough roots and nasty thorns.
And none of it matters. Because all you actually need to do is to write idiomatically. Non-idiomatic writing hurts the ear, just as you say. If it hurts your ear, it will hurt the reader's ear. And idiomatic writing is generally writing that you do by ear, not by remembering rules, but by remembering the sound and feel of the language as you have lived and loved it all your life. If you can write idiomatically, it doesn't matter if you can't tell a gerund from a gridiron.
What is more, the failure to write idiomatically is, as often as not, the result of the attempt to apply grammar rules half remembered or half understood -- or ones that are just plain wrong.
Trust your ear. If it sounds wrong, it probably is wrong. And remember, the way to fix a sentence that sounds wrong, or that is awkward to punctuate, or leaves you puzzled about matters of agreement, is often to recast the whole sentence into another form.
And remember this too. Most of the grammar nazis you meet on the web are corporals, not generals. The don't know what they are talking about half the time.