Yeah, I have similar height/weight stats. I'm not familiar with the skis she already uses, and of course weight only sort of useful - strength matters, too.
And so does camber - fully rockered will ski differently than traditional camber, and of course there is every choice in between.
@AngryAnalyst - I strongly encourage you to consider unisex. Some are stiff, some are soft - just have to look around. But there are so many more options, and women's skis are often oriented toward lighter weight skiers, which is precisely why you don't find a lot that are very wide.
Haven't read this thread in detail, but my favorite ski for anything from a little powder to a couple of feet of snow is the Nordica La Nina in 169. They don't make mine (2014) anymore, so I can't speak to the current inventory. But it's relatively soft, 113mm at the waist, huge shovel, lots of tip and tail rocker, and LIGHT. The tips just pop right up if they sink, but it also has enough camber at the waist to be fun (relatively speaking) on groomers.
I tried the Volkl One (115mm?) in 165 - wasn't convinced. Thought it might be too short. Then bumped up to the Volkl Two (125mm) in 175 - it was fun, but with the weight, I got tired quickly, and my imperfect technique led me to cross tips a lot as I got tired, compounding the issue. Both are fully rockered
Before that, I had the Icelantic Gypsy at I think 170 - fully rockered, but they really wanted to go straight down the hill with looooong turns, and I just wasn't comfortable with that. Tighter turns felt forced and were a lot of work. Also very heavy.
Currently I have the Faty-pus I Rock. 125mm in 165cm. Considerable traditional camber, I don't think fully cambered, though. Back to not being convinced. I am still not sure the fore/aft is great. My tips dive more than I like, though that could be a personal issue. I also didn't ski them for several years because of my knee surgery, but that's not an issue anymore. I think I'm trying to push them too much.
I'm fairly convinced at this point that 125mm is too dang wide for me *personally* to ski well on them. Haven't tried a 119, but 113 seems great - happy to ski that all day, even on some hard pack. I'm fairly convinced as well that 165 is too short for a deeper snow ski for me, while 175 is too long for my ability to maneuver. Of course, these numbers are greatly affected by camber / rocker, but even fully rockered skis feel like a lot of work to me at 175. I do NOT have the experience of a 125mm, 175cm, fully rockered ski that is (relatively) light, though - the weight could be a large part of the issue.
Confusing enough? I don't have answers, just thoughts.