In general, note that maximum likelihood estimators are not necessarily unbiased estimators.
I'm not familiar with Lebesgue integration, but hopefully using non-measure theoretic tools can help you find this.
First of all, observe that
$$\mathbb{E}[X_1]=\dfrac{2}{\theta^2}\int_{0}^{\theta}x^2\text{ d}x=\dfrac{2}{\theta^2}\cdot\dfrac{\theta^3}{3}=\dfrac{2\theta}{3}\text{.}$$
Thus, the estimator
$$\hat{\theta}=\dfrac{3}{2n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i$$
is unbiased for $\theta$, since
$$\mathbb{E}[\hat{\theta}]=\dfrac{3}{2n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb{E}[X_i]=\dfrac{3}{2n}\cdot \dfrac{2\theta}{3}\cdot n = \theta\text{.}$$
Additional comments: Your answer seems OK. It may be of interest to know that
$\hat \theta$ is not unbiased. One can get a rough idea of the distribution
of $\hat \theta$ for a particular $\theta$ by simulating many samples of
size $n.$ I don't know of a convenient 'unbiasing' constant multiple.
The Wikipedia article I linked in my Comment above gives more information.
Here is a simulation for $n = 10$ and $\theta = 5.$
th = 5; n = 10
th.mle = -n/replicate(10^6, sum(log(rbeta(n, th, 1))))
mean(th.mle)
## 5.555069 # aprx expectation of th.mle > th = 5.
median(th.mle)
## 5.172145
The histogram below shows the simulated distribution of $\hat \theta.$
The vertical red line is at the mean of that distribution, and the green
curve is its kernel density estimator (KDE). According to the KDE, its mode is near $4.62.$
den.inf = density(th.mle)
den.inf$x[den.inf$y==max(den.inf$y)]
## 4.624876
hist(th.mle, br=50, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="")
abline(v = mean(th.mle), col="red")
lines(density(th.mle), lwd=2, col="darkgreen")
Addendum on Parametric Bootstrap Confidence Interval for $\theta:$
In order to find a confidence interval (CI) for $\theta$ based on MLE $\hat \theta,$ we would like to know the distribution of $V = \frac{\hat \theta}{\theta}.$ When that distribution is not
readily available, we can use a parametric bootstrap.
If we knew the distribution of $V,$ then we could find numbers $L$ and $U$ such that
$P(L \le V = \hat\theta/\theta \le U) = 0.95$ so that a 95% CI would be of the form
$\left(\frac{\hat \theta}{U},\, \frac{\hat\theta}{L}\right).$ Because we do not know the distribution of $V$ we use a bootstrap procedure to get serviceable approximations $L^*$ and $U^*$ of $L$ and $U.$ respectively.
To begin, suppose we have a random sample of size $n = 50$ from $\mathsf{Beta}(\theta, 1)$
where $\theta$ is unknown and its observed MLE is $\hat \theta = 6.511.$
Entering, the so-called 'bootstrap world'. we take repeated 're-samples` of size $n=50$
from $\mathsf{Beta}(\hat \theta =6.511, 0),$ Then we we find the bootstrap
estimate $\hat \theta^*$ from each re-sample. Temporarily using the observed
MLE $\hat \theta = 6.511$ as a proxy for the unknown $\theta,$ we find a large number $B$ of re-sampled values $V^* = \hat\theta^2/\hat \theta.$ Then we use quantiles .02 and .97 of
these $V^*$'s as $L^*$ and $U^*,$ respectively.
Returning to the 'real world'
the observed MLE $\hat \theta$ returns to its original role as an estimator, and the
95% parametric bootstrap CI is $\left(\frac{\hat\theta}{U^*},\, \frac{\hat\theta}{L^*}\right).$
The R code, in which re-sampled quantities are denoted by .re instead of $*$, is shown below.
For this run with set.seed(213) the 95% CI is $(4.94, 8.69).$ Other runs with unspecified
seeds using $B=10,000$ re-samples of size $n = 50$ will give very similar values. [In a real-life application, we would not know whether this CI covers the 'true' value of $\theta.$ However,
I generated the original 50 observations using parameter value $\theta = 6.5,$ so in this demonstration we
do know that the CI covers the true parameter value $\theta.$ We could have used the
probability-symmetric CI with quantiles .025 and .975, but the one shown is a little shorter.]
set.seed(213)
B = 10000; n = 50; th.mle.obs=6.511
v.re = th.mle.obs/replicate(B, -n/sum(log(rbeta(n,th.mle.obs,1))))
L.re = quantile(v.re, .02); U.re = quantile(v.re, .97)
c(th.mle.obs/U.re, th.mle.obs/L.re)
## 98% 3%
## 4.936096 8.691692
Best Answer
Given a sample $x\equiv \{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$, the likelihood is $$ L(\theta\mid x)=\left(\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\right)^n\prod_{i=1}^n x_i \times1\{\theta\ge M(x),m(x)\ge 0\}, $$ where $M(x):=\max_{1\le i\le n}x_i$ and $m(x):=\min_{1\le i\le n}x_i$. The indicator suggests that $\hat{\theta}_n(x)\ge M(x)$ ($\because$ $L=0$ otherwise). However, taking values larger than $M(x)$ decreases $L$ because of the first term (assuming that $m(x)> 0$). Thus, $\hat{\theta}_n(x)= M(x)$.
As for the distribution of $\hat{\theta}_n$, for $z\in [0,\theta]$, $$ F(z)=\mathsf{P}(\hat{\theta}_n\le z)=\prod_{i=1}^n\mathsf{P}(X_i\le z)=\prod_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{z}{\theta}\right)^{2}=\left(\frac{z}{\theta}\right)^{2n}. $$
Since $\mathsf{E}X_i=2\theta/3$, examples of an unbiased estimator are $$ \hat{\theta}_n'=\frac{3}{2}\times \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i, \quad \hat{\theta}_n''=\frac{2n+1}{2n}\hat{\theta}_n. $$