That looks like a good idea, but why not go one step further? Provide a common API interface for password changes. Think about it: If you assume your pw manager database is compromised - what do you do? Go to a hundred webpages and change your password? probably not. Your PW Manager can't provide a feature to do it for you. But it could if there was such an API.
On that note though, if we start using standard APIs for this sort of thing, I question whether we should just go farther and "solve" the problem. Ie, as a dumb example, why should I expect them to implement an API for my password manager, and instead not simply allow oauth where my pass manager becomes my token provider? Doesn't that fake example solve both problems, while also getting rid of bizarre password churn?…
I don't know what features U2F tokens support, but if they can be password protected I don't see why U2F being the only auth factor would be bad. You could even have the token itself attest to being password protected so you could require that of users before allowing them to disable non-U2F passwords.