First of all, what Nietzsche described as the Dionysian, though it has many analogs to freuds idea of the unconscious or the ID, it is not an exact copy, and freud was arguing about completely different strands of thought in a different context. Orthodox methodology in intellectual history tends to eschew this sort of thinking, there’s even a term for it:teleological history. Just because they sound similar doesn’t mean it’s the same thing, and there’s good reason for considering freud the father of psychoanalysis. The conscious/subconcious dialectic is very different from the Dionysian-Apollonian, in simply terms.

Second, he’s not prescribing the Dionysian counter ideal as something that is innately good by itself. It’s the balancing of both that is required, and that’s very different from an explicit endorsement of the Dionysian.