One problem here is that you are acting outside the structure everyone else relies upon to make decisions and create efficiency. The fact this may be an unfortunately corrupt and inefficient mechanism to begin with does not prevent you from making it worse.
Even if your intention is good, the odds are that you are encouraging enough institutional waste to offset your net effect. And it may be pointless. After all, it may be perfectly possible to simply get the money given voluntarily by the corporation. PR pays off in spades.
I would argue from the Agile principle that lack of transparency ultimately displaces energy from the task at hand into power-mongering.
If this is something that happens -- employees simply reallocate funds on purpose to what they prefer -- then money might go missing from any part of the enterprise for no reason at any time. So the company cannot trust its control of where its money goes, and it has to pad allocations to many areas, lest they get stolen from at a bad time, causing delay or missed opportunities.
But then that is money that is sitting stagnant in reserve, in case something bad happens. It cannot be stored and leveraged, because its use cannot be planned. And it does not flow out into the economy. So it does not create employment opportunity that might eventually propagate out to create positions for those refugees if they want to establish residence in their new host countries.
One of the main reasons companies are larger and more rigid than necessary is to provide ballast meant to forestall risk. By creating unseen and unpredictable risk, you are encouraging them to be larger and for more of the bulk to be waste.