I'll assume that $\mathsf{ZFC}$ is at least $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$-sound, and use the following definition of the proof-theoretic ordinal:
We let $pto(T)$ be the supremum of the lengths of primitive recursive well-orderings which $T$ proves are in fact well-ordered.
Here $T$ is an "appropriate" theory - for simplicity, let's say it's a computably axiomatizable $(\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1)$-sound extension of $\mathsf{ZFC}$.
Then we can produce a uniformly primitive recursive family of theories $(T_i)_{i\in I}$ which provably in $\mathsf{ZFC}$ has the following nice properties:
Each $T_a$ is a consistent extension of $\mathsf{ZFC}$ by a single additional axiom.
$I$ is a linear order, and the $T_i$s are ordered by strength appropriately: if $a<_Ib$ then $T_b$ proves every axiom of $T_a$.
For each $\alpha<\omega_1^{CK}$ there is some $a\in I$ such that $T_a$ is $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$-sound and proves the well-foundedness of some primitive recursive ordering of type $\alpha$.
This uses a couple tricks. First, we apply Barwise-Kreisel Compactness to get a primitive recursive linear ordering $(I,<_I)$ with no hyperarithmetic descending sequences whose well-founded part has type $\omega_1^{CK}$ (these are called Harrison orders). Now for $a\in I$ let $T_a$ be $\mathsf{ZFC}$ + "The initial segment of $I$ up to $a$ is well-founded." The only way $T_a$ could be inconsistent is if $\mathsf{ZFC}$ disproves the well-foundedness of $I_{<a}$. Since $\mathsf{ZFC}$ is $\Pi^1_1$-sound, this can only happen if $a$ is in the illfounded part of $I$; since $I$ has no hyperarithmetic descending sequences, there must be some $b$ in the illfounded part of $I$ such that $T_b$ is consistent (and hence each $T_c$ is consistent for $c<_Ib$). WLOG then $T_a$ is consistent for each $a\in I$ (otherwise replace $I$ with $I_{<b}$).
The only nontrivial point now is to prove that if $a$ is in the well-founded part of $I$ (and remember that has ordertype $\omega_1^{CK}$) then $T_a$ is $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$-sound. To see this, suppose $T_a$ proves some false $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$ sentence $\varphi$. Then $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves the sentence "If $I_{<a}$ is well-founded then $\varphi$," which is a false $\Sigma^1_1\vee(\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma_1^1)$-sentence, or a false $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$-sentence. But this contradicts the $\Pi^1_1\vee\Sigma^1_1$-soundness of $\mathsf{ZFC}$.
This is an old argument, but I don't know who it's due to - it may well be folklore.