AI autosegmentation of organs-at-risk (OARs) is common practice at many radiotherapy clinics. Despite the abundance of gross tumor volume (GTV) autosegmentation algorithms, adoption in clinical care has been slow due to the high risk associated with errors in GTV delineation. Here we present a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to evaluate the risk associated with introducing AI derived GTVs in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). An AI GTV autosegmentation algorithm for brain metastases was developed in-house based on a V-Net 3D CNN. Registered CT and MR images and a contour of the brain are input into the software and all identified lesions are returned in a DICOM-RT structure set. Following algorithm evaluation, a workflow was developed to enable AI GTV autosegmentation to be introduced clinically for every SRS patient. The following steps were added to existing procedures: 1) workflow to send CT/MR and brain structure to external server, 2) autosegmentation run on the server, 3) AI GTV structures with a standard nomenclature added to existing OAR structure set, and 4) MD review, editing, and approval of AI GTVs. After successfully completing the physics evaluation testing of the new process, we formed a team of 10 faculty and staff including physicists, residents, physicians, and planners to perform the FMEA prior to clinical implementation. The team met to map the process, identify potential failure modes, and score their frequency of occurrence, severity, and detectability. A 3-point scale (1, 3, or 5) was used to simplify the scoring process. Occurrence was defined as rare, sometimes, or often; severity as low, medium, or high; and detectability as obvious, possible, or challenging. The risk probability numbers (RPNs) were calculated and the steps in the process with the highest RPNs were flagged for further discussion. The FMEA team completed their process map and analysis primarily in 4 meetings. The process map began with acquisition of the patients CT simulation scan and ended with physician approval of final volumes for treatment planning. We identified 17 process steps and 72 possible failure modes, of which 26 were associated with the new workflow. Eighteen failure modes had an RPN greater than 30 (highest risk score in at least one category) and were flagged to assess mitigation strategies. Five were unique to the new AI GTV workflow and mitigation strategies will be designed prior to clinical use. Those involved risks related to inaccurate AI GTV contours, false positives, and an incomplete review stemming from over-reliance by team members on AI. AI is increasingly being employed at every step of radiotherapy to automate and streamline processes. The FMEA analysis resulted in the identification of the riskiest parts of using AI GTV autosegmentation. This can be an effective tool in the development of checks to ensure that GTV autosegmentation methods can be safely introduced in support of patient care.