IRCC decides which local office will process the application, not the applicant. This is usually (there are exceptions) based on the applicant's actual place of residence. There are no options related to this. The application requires the applicant to TRUTHFULLY answer the questions asked, following the instructions, including disclosing the applicant's actual residential address, the place where the applicant actually resides.
To be clear: the address information an applicant provides in a citizenship application is NOT like providing an address for business purposes. Misrepresentation in a citizenship application can have rather severe consequences. Scores undoubtedly get away with fudging their address. Many more do not.
Also be aware that timeline conclusions about particular local offices, which tends to be based on anecdotal reporting or forum connected spreadsheet information and NOT a credible data source, is notoriously unreliable.
Generally any plan to manipulate information for the purpose of a citizenship application, even if arguably truthful, tends to be a bad idea. Applicants who are in fact qualified do best when they simply follow the instructions and provide complete and accurate and honest information (some may consider "accurate and honest" to be redundant; many, like a lawyer arguing to a jury, often exploit the difference; citizenship applicants do best by simply being as accurate and complete as possible, and to be as honest as possible).
Historical Note:
It was actually a fudged address that broke open the widespread fraud investigations the Harper government began prosecuting just over a decade ago. Applicant declared a Mississauga residential address rather than the address where he later claimed he was really living, purportedly on the advice of a "consultant" (and at an address provided by the consultant), precisely because at that time the Mississauga local office was thought to process applications much faster than the local office where this individual later claimed to actually live (the applicant argued he should still be granted citizenship because he was, after all he claimed, still IN Canada just at a different location). In the published decision about this case it appears authorities, including the Federal Court justice, at least doubted that the applicant actually lived where he later claimed to live. But they did not need to formally make a decision about that, since it was clear the applicant did not actually live at the address he gave in his application. That was sufficient grounds to deny the application on misrepresentation grounds and impose the prohibition barring him from citizenship for five years.
