The word "cylinder" is a much misunderstood word.
People generally assume a cylinder is a right circular cylinder. Some even assume it's hollow.
But to a mathematician, cylinders can have any cross-sectional shape, so a standard pine "2-by-4" board has an outer cylindrical shape ... let's not even get into whether it's hollow.
I have seen patent attorneys stumble around with phrases like "uniform profile along the length thereof" and "constant cross section" and such when the word "cylinder" is precisely the word needed.
But perhaps you don't need this word. I don't understand "contiguous shape" ... sounds like any connected body of any shape. So a funnel cake would have a contiguous shape by my understanding once you shake off all the little fried batter droplets caught up in its tangled form. I can do entirely without the powdered sugar thank you.
Maybe you just need a beam, or an arm, or an elongate member ... but what the heck does elongate even mean? I suppose a cigarette is elongate and a dime is not ... but once again ... there are concise words for these things ... prolate and oblate come to mind. But I digress.
I suppose that any word often misunderstood will likely be misconstrued and should therefore be avoided.
Just say "a cylidrically mainly aesthetic contiguous shape adapted to perform the same function as a funnel cake" and you'll be good to go.
On the other hand some distinguish between a "cylinder" and a "prism". In this usage, a "cylinder" has a curvilinear cross-section. A solid with all planar faces is a "prism". In this convention, a rectangular solid (such as a cube, a 2 X 4 board, a flattened dollar bill) is a prism, but not a cylinder. You seem to be saying that a "cylinder" refers to an arbitrary 3-D shape (leaving aside the issue of internal features and localized surface features). Is that your intent? If so, I would explicitly define it in the spec. I think you would have a hard time arguing that usage otherwise. If I claimed a cylinder, would a competitor's rectangular solid infringe?