As far as I know it is an ancient and wonderful vocation for a woman who is not called to marriage.
I have misgivings, in spite of this. The post-conciliar Church is quite capable of giving the name of an "ancient and wonderful vocation" to practices that are significantly different. This actually appears to be a favourite technique for creating confusion and introducing problematic changes. The whole time they claim it is merely the restoration of an earlier practice.
For example, one of the arguments given for female deacons is that there are records of deaconesses in the early Church. These women, however, were never a female counterpart for deacons. The had a specific limited role doing things like assisting with the baptism of female converts (for reasons of modesty). The current push for deaconesses is not meant to restore this but to erode the traditional teaching against ordaining women.
If I knew someone interested in being a consecrated virgin, I would advise her to base her understanding on the ancient practice, not on what is being done currently. I would also tell her to put herself under the spiritual direction of a trustworthy traditional priest. I don't think anyone should even attempt to do this without such spiritual direction.