There seems to be a mistaken impression that because setting your own figures is permitted in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century ("Regency") English country dancing, it must be required, and people who want to dance authentically need to stop using their favorite tunes and give up all their favorite figures in favor of learning to make them up on the spot.
That's not actually true. Assuming you have good reconstructions, which admittedly is a rather large assumption given how many dreadful (in a historical sense) ones are floating around, it's perfectly possible to keep right on doing the same figures to the same tunes forever and be historically correct. It's boring, and it's not displaying high-level ballroom skills for a dancer of the era (if you can consider "able to choose a different tune now and then" a suitable bar to clear to have "high-level ballroom skills"; it seems like a pretty low bar to me), but not incorrect.
What has to change is not what you do, but how you do it and how you think about it.
Incorrect: "This dance is called [name]. Its figures are [figures]"
Correct: "Here are the figures: [figures]. We're going to dance them to the tune [name]."
See what I did there? You can do exactly the same figures to exactly the same tune. Just...say it differently. Think about it differently. Understand the difference between a tune (music; the thing with a name) and dance figures (a selection from a limited repertoire of "glossary figures" put together in mostly-predictable ways).
And when you internalize that mindset rather than the modern one, the varied world of historical Regency dancing opens up to you.