I think it is great that you are thinking about the impact of your choices now on your future career! But I also think it will be okay if your topic isn't the snazziest!
If you don't end up deciding to continue on to a PhD program, but get a job in industry/etc related to your field, it is likely most employers won't care about what your particular topic was, or even know enough to discriminate against you for it being marginal (this might depend a lot on the field though). On the other hand, if you do continue in research, regardless of your topic, your advisor will probably have connections that could help you later on.
I think probably doing any research is better than none – and so what's most important is how likely you are to be able to do that research – how long will the relevant experiments/studies take, how soon will you be able to determine if a run isn't working, how much is the question structured in a way that will allow you to learn something useful even when your plans inevitably encounter problems.
To make this more concrete – imagine you are a biologist, studying the effects of some chemical on the development of an animal to a particular stage. You have to raise these animals for the entire time it takes for them to reach this stage, and you don't exactly know how long it will take. You could spend weeks working on an experiment only to end up with no data if they just fail to make the developmental transition you are expecting, or if the other objects in their environment turn out to interact with the chemical in some way you didn't expect, etc. Say these animals only reproduce during one season, meaning you only get one shot each year – then you risk doing work that yields nothing. Or, imagine you are doing field research, and due to a fire or pandemic or hurricane, the area you need to study is simply impossible to access for months. Same issue. You can never predict every risk like this, but it is worth thinking about how robust your topic is to unexpected roadblocks. That's not to say you shouldn't pursue such topics if you are interested! I did and I'm glad I did, even if I was frustrated at some points!
Depending on how your program works and what you want, you may or may not even need to produce publishable results. My program was a bit unusual in that it was a three year thesis that resulted in publications for pretty much everyone. But, even the people with the best projects, who were the most put-together, didn't get published before moving on to a PhD or a job. It simply takes too long to get a paper published (which is another thing you will have little control over). While in many contexts you can put papers that are partway through the process on your CV, I think it would be unreasonable to expect someone who had just gotten an MS to have a publication out.
Aside from the issue of publishing, I think it's worth considering what skills you would aquire working on your research topic – and especially if you are considering jobs outside of academia, I would strongly encourage you to spend some time looking at job listings to see what skills are expected for the positions you are interested. Some of these might be pretty easy (eg, if you are doing any "data science" type stuff, being able to say you are confident with Python, R, MySQL, whatever, is good). Others might be harder, but easier to pursue in a master's program than on your own. For instance, if you want to do anything related to marine biology (even working at an aquarium) many jobs expect you to be able to SCUBA dive, which requires expensive training and equipment that you probably can't afford on your own — if you can get a university or grant to help with that, that's a massive expansion of opportunities in the future. Likewise, many jobs require knowledge of expensive proprietary software like ArcGIS, which very likely will be free for you at a university.
Probably more important than any of this is your advisor. If you don't get along with them, it will be unpleasant, you'll likely drop out, and even if you don't, they might not be helpful references. If they are abusive, and have a reputation for trying to keep grad students around as long as possible, you could add years to your program just for someone else's benefit. If they are aloof and hands-off, you might not get the guidance you need. If you have a competent and kind advisor, your life will be way better and they will make sure you get something out of your master's. So I think if this potential advisor seems like a good person who is kind to you, that's the most important thing. He may even be open to letting you research a different topic.
I'm sorry this doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope some of it is helpful!