Used she to come here? is no longer idiomatic in spoken English, because the underlying semantic and phonetic structure has evolved.
In 19th century, the old 16th-18th century use + marked infinitive, meaning the sense of “do habitually” was still occasionally employed in the present tense. I find no indication that it was pronounced otherwise than as use is in all other modern senses: /juːz/.
That present-tense usage, however, appears to have been entirely literary. By 1904, Fowler could write (in a footnote to Milton's “Lycidas”) that “The present tense of the verb ‘to use’ is obsolete in this sense : we can say ‘ he used to do this,’ but not ‘ he uses to do this.’ ”
About the same time (the earliest instance I have found is 1916) a new spelling appears in the representation of ‘common’ speech: useta. This spelling is still found today, and I have to think that it represented, as it does now, the pronunciation /juːstə/. That marks the divorce of used to, both phonetically and semantically, from its origin in the ordinary verb use.
For more than a century, then, putting used in the front position, which enforces an unnatural pronunciation with /z/ would remove it from its proper syntactical context. Consequently, we can no more say “Used she to come here?” than we can say *Uses she to come here”—or “Has she to come here?” or “Wants she to come here?” We say “Did she useta come here?” just as we say “Does she hafta come here?” or “Does she wanta come here?”
If you actually encounter people saying “Uses she to come here?” you may put them down as pedants, and ignore their usage as hypercorrect.