The consequence would be that you'd have one term covering two offences, which is unique and unusual. I don't know of any other place in the Criminal Code where that is done, where two offences are referred to by one name.
Whether it would impact upon judges would be speculative. I can't guess as to what judges might do with a change by Parliament in giving, in section 255, a new name for the two provisions, but keeping in section 253, a different name: the current different names for the two provisions.