I have no idea what "cycling inseam" is; does that mean pubic bone height (PBH), or pants inseam, or something else? Here is a photo of a 22.5" nominal Raleigh lightweight with upright geometry (74 x 74 degrees) that I, as someone shorter than OP, rode for many years and enjoyed a lot, but I thought that the exposed lengths of seat post and stem looked dorky, and that bothered me enough to swear off bikes squarely in the middle range of size:
Based on limited height/inseam info given by OP, I'm inclined to agree with advice that this is not an optimal frame size for him, but not unrideable. Things would look worse with a non-fluted seat post, and eventually this bike got a Nitto Dirt Drop stem with up-angled forward projection that made the stem exposure look better too. These things can be done; but with lots of seat post and lots of stem, and you might as well be riding an MTB.
My standard saddle height is 77 cm from BB centerline, measured along seat post, with a 170 mm crank (so 94 cm from pedal spindle to saddle).
Full disclosure: I am long-legged for my 5'-10 1/2" height (83 cm PBH, 32" pants inseam), and prefer a more "toes-down" leg action, I think, than many cyclists, so that exaggerates things a little. I can ride up to a 63 cm CTT frame with no problem standover-wise, though 61 cm (24") or 62 CTT is probably a better fit. A 63 cm frame gives me about 5.5-6 cm of a Campagnolo vintage 2-bolt seat post exposed -- also entirely reasonable-looking at that end of the spectrum. And on a 63 cm bike, I can get away with a "normal" racing bike stem like an English GB or Cinelli 1A, and have the bars at a reasonably comfortable height for my "sexagenarian" cycling style with a somatotype that's just a bit into the "overweight" BMI category. YMMdefinitelyV -- just an example.