WBC, IBF and indeed the WBO all are ******* off spring of the W(N)BA. But rating their prestige is like saying you prefer dog **** to horse **** and cat ****.
In laymans terms, the WBA belt is the oldest, but the WBC would appear the higher regarded of the three you mention.
I don't really place much weight on that either. It has no more credibility than the other world titles. And does it help boxers to get more money than the 'official' world titles?
If a fighter wants to be considered the legitimate world champ, they need to unify the titles. I don't place that much weight on lineage because sooner or later it becomes 'the man who beat the man who beat the man who beat the man' and how good was the man they last beat? If you unify the belts, that should be good enough to establish a new lineage.
In this day and age you need to unify them or beat the man who had them all but may have been stripped for fighting other title holders. WBC are probably the worst now with WBA not far off. Hard to say anything good about WBO and IBF but they are more consistent and less shitty than WBC/WBA but still awful.
The IBF is the biggest pain in the ass but I can say that they are rigid about enforcing their mandatories. They don't have any franchise belts and as far as I know - could be wrong - haven't conspired to protect certain fighters unlike some other belts. So I might say that they are the most worthy of respect, although I don't know about the most valued.